.[3RARY 

"IIYERSITY  OP 


^ 


SMi»A 


Li-. 


MISINFORMING  A  NATION 


BOOKS  BY  MR.  WRIGHT 


MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

MODERN  PAINTING:    Its  Tendency 
and   Meaning 

WHAT  NIETZSCHE  TAUGHT 

THE  MAN   OF  PROMISE 

THE  CREATIVE  WILL 

IN   PREPARATION 

MODERN   LITERATURE 

PRINCIPLES  OF  ESTHETIC  FORM 
AND   ORGANIZATION 


Jylisinforming  a   iSation 

by   Willard  Huntington   Wright 


New  York    B.  W.  Huebsch    MCMXVII 


COPYRIGHT,  1917.  BY 
B.  W.  HUEBSCH 


FUIKTED    IN    THE    UNITTD   STATES  OF   AMERICA 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I    Colonizing  America i 

II     The  Novel 24 

III  The  Drama 52 

IV  Poetry 68 

V    British  Painting 85 

VI    Non-British  Painting 102 

VII    Music 122 

VIII    Science 148 

IX  Inventions,  Photography,  ^Esthetics      .  160 

X    Philosophy 174 

XI    Religion 195 

XII    Two  Hundred  Omissions 218 


MISINFORMING  A  NATION 


COLONIZING   AMERICA 

The  intellectual  colonization  of  America  by  Eng- 
land has  been  going  on  for  generations.  Taking 
advantage  of  her  position  of  authority — a  posi- 
tion built  on  centuries  of  aesthetic  tradition — Eng- 
land has  let  pass  few  opportunities  to  ridicule 
and  disparage  our  activities  in  all  lines  of  creative 
effort,  and  to  impress  upon  us  her  own  assumed 
cultural  superiority.  Americans,  lacking  that 
sense  of  security  which  long-established  institu- 
tions would  give  them,  have  been  influenced  by 
the  insular  judgments  of  England,  and,  in  an  ef- 
fort to  pose  as  au  courant  of  the  achievements  of 
the  older  world,  have  adopted  in  large  degree  the 
viewpoint  of  Great  Britain.  The  result  has  been 
that  for  decades  the  superstition  of  England's  pre- 
eminence in  the  world  of  art  and  letters  has 
spread  and  gained  power  in  this  country.  Our 
native  snobbery,  both  social  and  intellectual,  has 
kept  the  fires  of  this  superstition  well  supplied 


2  MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

with  fuel ;  and  in  our  slavish  imitation  of  England 
— the  only  country  in  Europe  of  which  we  have 
any  intimate  knowledge — we  have  de-American- 
ized ourselves  to  such  an  extent  that  there  has 
grown  up  in  us  a  typical  British  contempt  for  our 
own  native  achievements. 

One  of  the  cardinal  factors  in  this  Briticization 
of  our  intellectual  outlook  is  the  common  language 
of  England  and  America.  Of  all  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  world,  we  are  most  deficient  as 
linguists.  Because  of  our  inability  to  speak 
fluently  any  language  save  our  own,  a  great  bar- 
rier exists  between  us  and  the  Continental  coun- 
tries. But  no  such  barrier  exists  between  America 
and  England;  and  consequently  there  is  a  con- 
stant exchange  of  ideas,  beliefs,  and  opinions. 
English  literature  is  at  our  command;  English 
criticism  is  familiar  to  us;  and  English  standards 
are  disseminated  among  us  without  the  impedi- 
ment of  translation.  Add  to  this  lingual  rap- 
prochement  the  traditional  authority  of  Great 
Britain,  together  with  the  social  aspirations  of 
moneyed  Americans,  and  you  will  have  both  the 
material  and  the  psychological  foundation  on 
which  the  great  edifice  of  English  culture  has 
been  reared  in  this  country. 

The  English  themselves  have  made  constant 
and  liberal  use  of  these  conditions.     An  old  and 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  3 

disquieting  jealousy,  which  is  tinctured  not  a  lit- 
tle by  resentment,  has  resulted  in  an  open  con- 
tempt for  all  things  American.  And  it  is  not  un- 
natural that  this  attitude  should  manifest  itself 
in  a  condescending  patronage  which  is  far  from 
being  good-natured.  Our  literature  is  derided; 
our  artists  are  ridiculed;  and  in  nearly  every  field 
of  our  intellectual  endeavor  England  has  found 
grounds  for  disparagement.  It  is  necessary  only 
to  look  through  British  newspapers  and  critical 
journals  to  discover  the  contemptuous  and  not 
infrequently  venomous  tone  which  characterizes 
the  discussion  of  American  culture. 

At  the  same  time,  England  grasps  every  op- 
portunity for  foisting  her  own  artists  and  artisans 
on  this  country.  She  it  is  who  sets  the  standard 
which  at  once  demolishes  our  individual  expres- 
sion and  glorifies  the  efforts  of  Englishmen.  Our 
publishers,  falling  in  line  with  this  campaign,  im- 
port all  manner  of  English  authors,  eulogize  them 
with  the  aid  of  biased  English  critics,  and  neglect 
better  writers  of  America  simply  because  they  have 
displeased  those  gentlemen  in  London  who  sit  in 
judgment  upon  our  creative  accomplishments. 
Our  magazines,  edited  for  the  most  part  by  timid 
nobodies  whose  one  claim  to  intellectual  distinc- 
tion is  that  they  assiduously  play  the  parrot  to 
British  opinion,  fill  their  publications  with  the 


4  MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

work  of  English  mediocrities  and  ignore  the  more 
deserving  contributions  of  their  fellow-country- 
men. 

Even  our  educational  institutions  disseminate 
the  English  superstition  and  neglect  the  great 
men  of  ^\merica;  for  nowhere  in  the  United  States 
will  you  find  the  spirit  of  narrow  snobbery  so 
highly  developed  as  in  our  colleges  and  universi- 
ties. Recently  an  inferior  British  poet  came  here, 
and,  for  no  other  reason  apparently  save  that  he 
was  English,  he  was  made  a  professor  in  one  of 
our  large  universities!  Certainly  his  talents  did 
not  warrant  this  appointment,  for  there  are  at  least 
a  score  of  American  poets  who  are  undeniably 
superior  to  this  young  Englishman.  Nor  has  he 
shown  any  evidences  of  scholarship  which  would 
justify  the  honor  paid  him.  But  an  Englishman, 
if  he  seek  favors,  needs  little  more  than  proof  of 
his  nationality,  whereas  an  American  must  give 
evidence  of  his  worth. 

England  has  shown  the  same  ruthlessness  and 
unscrupulousness  in  her  intellectual  colonization 
of  America  as  in  her  territorial  colonizations;  and 
she  has  also  exhibited  the  same  persistent  shrewd- 
ness. What  is  more,  this  cultural  extension  pol- 
icy has  paid  her  lavishly.  English  authors,  to 
take  but  one  example,  regard  the  United  States  as 
their  chief  source  of  income.     If  it  were  the  high- 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  ^ 

est  English  culture — that  is,  the  genuinely  signifi- 
cant scholarship  of  the  few  great  modem  British 
creators — which  was  forced  upon  America,  there 
would  be  no  cause  for  complaint.  But  the  gov- 
erning influences  in  English  criticism  are  aggres- 
sively middle-class  and  chauvinistic,  with  the  re- 
sult that  it  is  the  British  bourgeois  who  has  stifled 
our  individual  expression,  and  misinformed  us  on 
the  subject  of  European  culture. 

No  better  instance  of  this  fact  can  be  pointed 
to  than  the  utterly  false  impression  which  Amer- 
ica has  of  French  attainments.  French  genius 
has  always  been  depreciated  and  traduced  by  the 
British;  and  no  more  subtle  and  disgraceful  cam- 
paign of  derogation  has  been  launched  in  modern 
times  than  the  consistent  method  pursued  by  the 
English  in  misinterpreting  French  ideals  and  ac- 
complishments to  Americans.  To  England  is  due 
largely,  if  not  entirely,  the  uncomplimentary  opin- 
ion that  Americans  have  of  France — an  opinion 
at  once  distorted  and  indecent.  To  the  average 
American  a  French  novel  is  regarded  merely  as  a 
salacious  record  of  adulteries.  French  periodi- 
cals are  looked  upon  as  collections  of  prurient  an- 
ecdotes and  licentious  pictures.  And  the  average 
French  painting  is  conceived  as  a  realistic  presen- 
tation of  feminine  nakedness.  So  deeply  rooted 
are  these  conceptions  that  the  very  word  "French" 


6  MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

has  become,  in  the  American's  vocabulary,  an  ad- 
jective signifying  all  manner  of  sexual  abnormali- 
ties, and  when  applied  to  a  play,  a  story,  or  an 
illustration,  it  is  synonymous  with  "dirty"  and 
"immoral."  This  country  has  yet  to  understand 
the  true  fineness  of  French  life  and  character,  or 
to  appreciate  the  glories  of  French  art  and  litera- 
ture ;  and  the  reason  for  our  distorted  ideas  is  that 
French  culture,  in  coming  to  America,  has  been 
filtered  through  the  nasty  minds  of  middle-class 
English  critics. 

But  it  is  not  our  biased  judgment  of  the  Con- 
tinental nations  that  is  the  most  serious  result 
of  English  misrepresentation;  in  time  we  will  come 
to  realize  how  deceived  we  were  in  accepting  Eng- 
land's insinuations  that  France  is  indecent,  Ger- 
many stupid,  Italy  decadent,  and  Russia  barbar- 
ous. The  great  harm  done  by  England's 
contemptuous  critics  is  in  belittling  American 
achievement.  Too  long  has  bourgeois  British  cul- 
ture been  forced  upon  the  United  States;  and  we 
have  been  too  gullible  in  our  acceptance  of  it  with- 
out question.  English  critics  and  English  periodi- 
cals have  consistently  attempted  to  discourage  the 
growth  of  any  national  individualism  in  America, 
by  ridiculing  or  ignoring  our  best  aesthetic  efforts 
and  by  imposing  upon  us  their  own  insular  criteria. 
To  such  an  extent  have  they  succeeded  that  an 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  ^ 

American  author  often  must  go  to  England  before 
he  will  be  accepted  by  his  own  countrymen.  Thus 
purified  by  contact  with  English  culture,  he  finds 
a  way  into  our  appreciation. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  almost  any  English 
author — even  one  that  England  herself  has  little 
use  for — can  acquire  fame  by  visiting  this  coun- 
try. Upon  his  arrival  he  is  interviewed  by  the 
newspapers;  his  picture  appears  in  the  "supple- 
ments"; his  opinions  emblazon  the  headlines  and 
are  discussed  in  editorials;  and  our  publishers 
scramble  for  the  distinction  of  bringing  out  his 
wares.  In  this  the  publishers,  primarily  com- 
mercial, reveal  their  business  acumen,  for  they  are 
not  unaware  of  the  fact  that  the  "literary"  sections 
of  our  newspapers  are  devoted  largely  to  British 
authors  and  British  letters.  So  firmly  has  the 
English  superstition  taken  hold  of  our  publishers 
that  many  of  them  print  their  books  with  English 
spelling.  The  reason  for  this  un-American  prac- 
tice, so  they  explain,  is  that  the  books  may  be 
ready  for  an  English  edition  without  resetting. 
The  English,  however,  do  not  use  American  spell- 
ing at  all,  though,  as  a  rule,  the  American  editions 
of  English  books  are  much  larger  than  the  English 
edition  of  American  books.  But  the  English  do 
not  like  our  spelling;  therefore  we  gladly  arrange 
matters  to  their  complete  satisfaction. 


8  MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

The  evidences  of  the  American's  enforced  be- 
lief in  English  superiority  are  almost  numberless. 
Apartment  houses  and  suburban  sub-divisions  are 
named  after  English  hotels  and  localities.  The 
belief  extends  even  to  the  manufacturers  of  cer- 
tain brands  of  cigarettes  which,  for  sale  purposes, 
are  advertised  as  English,  although  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  a  box  of  them  abroad.  The 
American  actor,  in  order  to  gain  distinction,  apes 
the  dress,  customs,  intonation  and  accent  of  Eng- 
lishmen. His  great  ambition  is  to  be  mistaken 
for  a  Londoner.  This  pose,  however,  is  not  all 
snobbery :  it  is  the  outcome  of  an  earnest  desire  to 
appear  superior ;  and  so  long  has  England  insisted 
upon  her  superiority  that  many  Americans  have 
come  to  adopt  it  as  a  cultural  fetish. 

Hitherto  this  exalted  intellectual  guidance  has 
been  charitably  given  us:  never  before,  as  now, 
has  a  large  fortune  been  spent  to  make  America 
pay  handsomely  for  the  adoption  of  England's 
provincialism.  I  refer  to  the  Encyclopedia  Brit- 
annica  which,  by  a  colossal  campaign  of  flamboy- 
ant advertising,  has  been  scattered  broadcast  over 
every  state  in  the  union. 

No  more  vicious  and  dangerous  educational  in- 
fluence on  America  can  readily  be  conceived  than 
the  articles  in  this  encyclopsedia.  They  distort 
the  truth  and  disseminate  false  standards.     Amer- 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  g 

ica  is  now  far  enough  behind  the  rest  of  the  civ- 
ilized world  in  its  knowledge  of  art,  without  hav- 
ing added  to  that  ignorance  the  erroneous  impres- 
sions created  by  this  partial  and  disproportioned 
English  work;  for,  in  its  treatment  of  the  world's 
progress,  it  possesses  neither  universality  of  out- 
look nor  freedom  from  prejudice  in  its  judgments 
— the  two  primary  requisites  for  any  work  which 
lays  claim  to  educational  merit.  Taken  as  a 
whole,  the  Britannica's  divisions  on  culture  are 
little  more  than  a  brief  for  British  art  and  science 
— a  brief  fraught  with  the  rankest  injustice  to- 
ward the  achievements  of  other  nations,  and  es- 
pecially toward  those  of  America. 

The  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Encyclopdidia 
Britannica  is  its  petty  national  prejudice.  This 
prejudice  appears  constantly  and  in  many  dis- 
guises through  the  Encyclopaedia's  pages.  It 
manifests  itself  in  the  most  wanton  carelessness 
in  dealing  with  historical  facts;  in  glaring  inad- 
equacies when  discussing  the  accomplishments  of 
nations  other  than  England;  in  a  host  of  inex- 
cusable omissions  of  great  men  who  do  not  happen 
to  be  blessed  with  English  nationality;  in  venom 
and  denunciation  of  viewpoints  which  do  not  hap- 
pen to  coincide  with  "English  ways  of  thinking"; 
and  especially  in  neglect  of  American  endeavor. 
Furthermore,  the  Britannica  shows  unmistakable 


lo        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

signs  of  haste  or  carelessness  in  preparation.  In- 
formation is  not  always  brought  up  to  date. 
Common  proper  names  are  inexcusably  misspelled. 
Old  errors  remain  uncorrected.  Inaccuracies 
abound.  Important  subjects  are  ignored.  And 
only  in  the  field  of  English  activity  does  there 
seem  to  be  even  an  attempt  at  completeness. 

The  'Encyclopedia  Britannica^  if  accepted  un- 
questioningly  throughout  this  country  as  an 
authoritative  source  of  knowledge,  would  retard 
our  intellectual  development  fully  twenty  years; 
for  so  one-sided  is  its  information,  so  distorted  arc 
its  opinions,  so  far  removed  is  it  from  being  an 
international  and  impartial  reference  work,  that 
not  only  does  it  give  inadequate  advice  on  vital 
topics,  but  it  positively  creates  false  impressions. 
Second-  and  third-rate  Englishmen  are  given 
space  and  praise  much  greater  than  that  accorded 
truly  great  men  of  other  nations;  and  the  eulogis- 
tic attention  paid  English  endeavor  in  general  is 
out  of  all  proportion  to  its  deserts.  In  the  fol- 
lowing chapters  I  shall  show  specifically  how  Brit- 
ish culture  is  glorified  and  exaggerated,  and  with 
what  injustice  the  culture  of  other  countries  is 
treated.  And  I  shall  also  show  the  utter  failure 
of  this  Encyclopaedia  to  fulfill  its  claim  of  being 
a  "universal"  and  "objective"  reference  library. 
To  the  contrary,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Britannica 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  ii 

is  a  narrow,  parochial,  opinionated  work  of  dubi- 
ous scholarship  and  striking  unreliability. 

With  the  somewhat  obscure  history  of  the  birth 
of  the  Eleventh  Edition  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Bntannica^  or  with  the  part  played  in  that  his- 
tory by  Cambridge  University  and  the  London 
Times,  I  am  not  concerned.  Nor  shall  I  review 
the  unethical  record  of  the  two  issues  of  the  En- 
cyclopgedia.  To  those  interested  in  this  side  of 
the  question  I  suggest  that  they  read  the  follow- 
ing contributions  in  Reedy's  Mirror:  The  Same 
Old  Slippery  Trick  (March  24,  1916).  The 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  Swindle  (April  7, 
1916).  The  Encyclopedia  Britannica  Fake 
(April  14,  1916) ;  and  also  the  article  in  the 
March  18  (1916)  Bellman,  Once  More  the 
Same  Old  Game. 

Such  matters  might  be  within  the  range  of  for- 
giveness if  the  contents  of  the  Britannica  were 
what  were  claimed  for  them.  But  that  which 
does  concern  me  is  the  palpable  discrepancies  be- 
tween the  statements  contained  in  the  advertising, 
and  the  truth  as  revealed  by  a  perusal  of  the  arti- 
cles and  biographies  contained  in  the  work  itself. 
The  statements  insisted  that  the  Britannica  was 
a  supreme,  unbiased,  and  international  reference 
library — an  impartial  and  objective  review  of  the 
world;  and  it  was  on  these  statements,  repeated 


12        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

constantly,  that  Americans  bought  the  work.  The 
truth  is  that  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  in  its 
main  departments  of  culture,  is  characterized  by 
misstatements,  inexcusable  omissions,  rabid  and 
patriotic  prejudices,  personal  animosities,  blatant 
errors  of  fact,  scholastic  ignorance,  gross  neglect 
of  non-British  culture,  an  astounding  egotism,  and 
an  undisguised  contempt  for  American  progress. 

Rarely  has  this  country  witnessed  such  inde- 
fensible methods  in  advertising  as  those  adopted 
by  the  Britannica's  exploiters.  The  "copy"  has 
fairly  screamed  with  extravagant  and  fabulous  ex- 
aggerations. The  vocabulary  of  hyperbole  has 
been  practically  exhausted  in  setting  forth  the  du- 
bious merits  of  this  reference  work.  The  ethics 
and  decencies  of  ordinary  honest  commerce  have 
been  thrown  to  the  wind.  The  statements  made 
day  after  day  were  apparently  concocted  irrespec- 
tive of  any  consideration  save  that  of  making  a 
sale ;  for  there  is  an  abundance  of  evidence  to  show 
that  the  Encyclopsedia  was  not  what  was  claimed 
for  it. 

With  the  true  facts  regarding  this  encyclo- 
psedia it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  the  encomiums  of 
many  eminent  Americans  who,  by  writing  eulogis- 
tic letters  to  the  Britannica's  editor  concerning  the 
exalted  merits  of  his  enterprise,  revealed  either 
their  unfamiliarity  with  the  books  in  question  or 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  13 

their  ignorance  of  what  constituted  an  educational 
reference  work.  These  letters  were  duly  photo- 
graphed and  reproduced  in  the  advertisements, 
and  they  now  make  interesting,  if  disconcerting, 
reading  for  the  non-British  student  who  put  his 
faith  in  them  and  bought  the  Britannica.  There 
is  no  need  here  to  quote  from  these  letters;  for  a 
subsequent  inspection  of  the  work  thus  recom- 
mended must  have  sufficiently  mortified  those  of 
the  enthusiastic  correspondents  who  were  educated 
and  had  consciences ;  and  the  others  would  be  un- 
moved by  any  revelations  of  mine. 

Mention,  however,  should  be  made  of  the  re- 
marks of  the  American  Ambassador  to  Great  Brit- 
ain at  the  banquet  given  in  London  to  celebrate 
the  Encyclopedia's  birth.  This  gentleman,  in  an 
amazing  burst  of  unrestrained  laudation,  said  he 
believed  that  "it  is  the  general  judgment  of  the 
scholars  and  the  investigators  of  the  world  that 
the  one  book  to  which  they  can  go  for  the  most 
complete,  comprehensive,  thorough,  and  absolutely 
precise  statements  of  fact  upon  every  subject  of 
human  interest  is  the  Encyclopcsdia  Britannica^ 
This  is  certainly  an  astonishing  bit  of  eulog}'. 
Its  dogmatic  positiveness  and  its  assumption  of 
infallibility  caused  one  critic  (who  is  also  a  great 
scholar)  to  write :  "With  all  due  respect  for  our 
illustrious  fellow-countryman,  the  utterance  is  a 


14        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

most  superlative  absurdity,  unless  it  was  intended 
to  be  an  exercise  of  that  playful  and  elusive 
American  humor  which  the  apperceptions  of  our 
English  cousins  so  often  fail  to  seize,  much  less 
appreciate."  But  there  were  other  remarks  of 
similar  looseness  at  the  banquet,  and  the  dinner 
evidently  was  a  greater  success  than  the  books 
under  discussion. 

Even  the  English  critics  themselves  could  not 
accept  the  Britannica  as  a  source  for  "the  most 
comprehensive,  thorough  and  absolutely  precise 
statements  on  every  subject  of  human  interest." 
Many  legitimate  objections  began  appearing. 
There  is  space  here  to  quote  only  a  few.  The 
London  Nation  complains  that  "the  particularly 
interesting  history  of  the  French  Socialist  move- 
ment is  hardly  even  sketched."  And  again  it 
says:  "The  naval  question  is  handled  on  the 
basis  of  the  assumption  which  prevailed  during 
our  recent  scare;  the  challenge  of  our  Dread- 
nought building  is  hardly  mentioned;  the  menace 
of  M.  Delcasse's  policy  of  encirclement  is  ignored, 
and  both  in  the  article  on  Germany  and  in  the 
articles  on  Europe,  Mr.  McKenna's  panic  figures 
and  charges  of  accelerated  building  are  treated  as 
the  last  word  of  historical  fact."  The  same  pub- 
lication, criticising  the  article  on  Europe,  says: 
"There  is  nothing  but  a  dry  and  summarized  gen- 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  i? 

eral  history,  ending  with  a  paragraph  or  two  on 
the  Anglo-German  struggle  with  the  moral  that 
'Might  is  Right.'  It  is  history  of  Europe  which 
denies  the  idea  of  Europe." 

Again,  we  find  evidence  of  a  more  direct  char- 
acter, which  competently  refutes  the  amazing  an- 
nouncement of  our  voluble  Ambassador  to  Great 
Britain.  In  a  letter  to  the  London  Times,  an 
indignant  representative  of  Thomas  Carlyle's 
family  objects  to  the  inaccurate  and  biased  man- 
ner in  which  Carlyle  is  treated  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia. "The  article,*'  he  says,  "was  evidently 
written  many  years  ago,  before  the  comparatively 
recent  publication  of  new  and  authentic  material, 
and  nothing  has  been  done  to  bring  it  up  to  date. 
.  .  .  As  far  as  I  know,  none  of  the  original  errors 
have  been  corrected,  and  many  others  of  a  worse 
nature  have  been  added.  The  list  of  authorities 
on  Carlyle's  life  affords  evidence  of  ignorance  or 
partisanship." 

"Evidently,"  comments  a  shrewd  critic  who  is 
not  impressed  either  by  the  Ambassador's  pane- 
gyric or  the  photographed  letters,  "the  great 
man's  family,  and  the  public  in  general,  have  a 
reasonable  cause  of  offense,  and  they  may  also 
conclude  that  if  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  can 
blunder  when  handling  such  an  approachable  and 
easy  British  subject  as  Carlyle,  it  can  be  reason- 


i6        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ably  expected  to  do  worse  on  other  matters  which 
are  not  only  absolutely  foreign,  but  intensely  dis- 
tasteful to  the  uninformed  and  prejudiced  scribes 
to  whom  they  seem  to  be  so  frequently,  if  not 
systematically,  assigned." 

The  expectation  embodied  in  the  above  com- 
ment is  more  fully  realized  perhaps  than  the 
writer  of  those  words  imagined;  and  the  purpose 
of  this  book  is  to  reveal  the  blundering  and  mis- 
leading information  which  would  appear  to  be 
the  distinguishing  quality  of  the  Britannica's 
articles  on  culture.  Moreover,  as  I  have  said, 
and  as  I  shall  show  later,  few  subjects  are  as  "in- 
tensely distasteful"  to  the  "uninformed  and 
prejudiced"  British  critics  as  is  American  achieve- 
ment. One  finds  it  difficult  to  understand  how 
any  body  of  foreigners  would  dare  offer  America 
the  brazen  insult  which  is  implied  in  the  prodigal 
distribution  of  these  books  throughout  the  coun- 
try; for  in  their  unconquerable  arrogance,  their 
unveiled  contempt  for  this  nation — the  outgrowth 
of  generations  of  assumed  superiority — they  sur- 
pass even  the  London  critical  articles  dealing 
with  our  contemporary  literary  efforts. 

Several  of  our  more  courageous  and  pro-Amer- 
ican scholars  have  called  attention  to  the  inade- 
quacies and  insularities  in  the  Britannica^  but 
their  voices  have  not  been  sufficiently  far-reaching 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  17 

to  counteract  either  the  mass  or  the  unsavory 
character  of  the  advertising  by  which  this  un- 
worthy and  anti-American  encyclopaedia  was 
foisted  upon  the  United  States.  Conspicuous 
among  those  publications  which  protested  was 
the  Twentieth  Century  Magazine.  That  period- 
ical, to  refer  to  but  one  of  its  several  criticisms, 
pointed  out  that  the  article  on  Democracy  is  "con- 
fined to  the  alleged  democracies  of  Greece  and 
their  distinguished,  if  some  time  dead,  advocates. 
Walt  Whitman,  Mazzini,  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Edward  Carpenter,  Lyof  Tolstoi,  Switzerland, 
New  Zealand,  Australia,  Finland,  Iceland,  Ore- 
gon are  unknown  quantities  to  this  anonymous 
classicist." 

It  is  also  noted  that  the  author  of  the  articles 
on  Sociology  "is  not  very  familiar  with  the  Amer- 
ican sociologists,  still  less  with  the  German,  and 
not  at  all  with  the  French."  The  article  is  "a 
curious  evidence  of  editorial  insulation,"  and  the 
one  on  Economics  "betrays  freshened  British 
capitalistic  insularity."  In  this  latter  article, 
which  was  substituted  for  Professor  Ingram's 
masterly  and  superb  history  of  political  economy 
in  the  Britannica's  Ninth  Edition,  "instead  of  a 
catholic,  scientific  survey  of  economic  thought,  we 
have  a  'fair  trade'  pamphlet,  which  actually  in- 
cludes reference  to  Mr.  Chamberlain,"  although 


i8        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

the  names  of  Henry  George,  Karl  Marx,  Fried- 
rich  Engels,  John  A.  Hobson,  and  William  Smart 
are  omitted. 

The  Eleventh  Edition,  concludes  the  Twentieth 
Century,  after  recording  many  other  specimens  of 
ignorance  and  inefficiency,  "is  not  only  insular; 
it  betrays  its  class-conscious  limitation  in  being 
woefully  defective  in  that  prophetic  instinct  which 
guided  Robertson  Smith  in  his  choice  of  con- 
tributors to  the  Ninth  Edition,  and  the  con- 
tributors themselves  in  their  treatment  of  rapidly 
changing  subjects."  Robertson  Smith,  let  it  be 
noted,  stood  for  fairness,  progressiveness,  and 
modernity;  whereas  the  Britannica's  present  edi- 
tor is  inflexibly  reactionary,  provincial,  and  un- 
just to  an  almost  incredible  degree. 

The  foregoing  quotations  are  not  isolated  ob- 
jections: there  were  others  of  similar  nature. 
And  these  few  specimens  are  put  down  here 
merely  to  show  that  there  appeared  sufficient  evi- 
dence, both  in  England  and  America,  to  establish 
the  purely  imaginary  nature  of  the  Britannica's 
claims  of  completeness  and  inerrancy,  and  to  re- 
veal the  absurdity  of  the  American  Ambassador's 
amazing  pronouncement.  Had  the  sale  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  been  confined  to  that 
nation  whose  culture  it  so  persistently  and  dog- 
matically glorifies  at  the  expense  of  the  culture 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  19 

of  other  nations,  its  parochial  egotism  would  not 
be  America's  concern.  But  since  this  reference 
work  has  become  an  American  institution  and  has 
forced  its  provincial  mediocrity  into  over  100,000 
American  homes,  schools  and  offices,  the  astonish- 
ing truth  concerning  its  insulting  ineptitude  has 
become  of  vital  importance  to  this  country.  Its 
menace  to  American  educational  progress  can  no 
longer  be  ignored. 

England's  cultural  campaign  in  the  United 
States  during  past  decades  has  been  sufficiently 
insidious  and  pernicious  to  work  havoc  with  our 
creative  effort,  and  to  retard  us  in  the  growth  of 
that  self-confidence  and  self -appreciation  which 
alone  make  the  highest  achievement  possible. 
But  never  before  has  there  been  so  concentrated 
and  virulently  inimical  a  medium  for  British  in- 
fluence as  the  present  edition  of  the  Encycloptzdia 
Britannica.  These  books,  taken  in  conjunction 
with  the  methods  by  which  they  have  been  foisted 
upon  us,  constitute  one  of  the  most  subtle  and 
malign  dangers  to  our  national  enlightenment 
and  development  which  it  has  yet  been  our  mis- 
fortune to  possess;  for  they  bid  fair  to  remain, 
in  large  measure,  the  source  of  America's  informa- 
tion for  many  years  to  come. 

The  regrettable  part  of  England's  intellectual 
intrigues  in  the  United  States  is  the  subservient 


20        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

and  docile  acquiescence  of  Americans  themselves. 
Either  they  are  impervious  to  England's  sneers 
and  deaf  to  her  insults,  or  else  their  snobbery  is 
stronger  than  their  self-respect.  I  have  learned 
from  Britishers  themselves,  during  an  extended 
residence  in  London,  that  not  a  little  of  their  con- 
tempt for  Americans  is  due  to  our  inordinate 
capacity  for  taking  insults.  Year  after  year 
English  animus  grows;  and  to-day  it  is  the  un- 
common thing  to  find  an  English  publication 
which,  in  discussing  the  United  States  and  its  cul- 
ture, does  not  contain  some  affront  to  our  in- 
telligence. 

It  is  quite  true,  as  the  English  insist,  that  we 
are  painfully  ignorant  of  Europe ;  but  it  must  not 
be  forgotten  that  the  chief  source  of  that  ignor- 
ance is  England  herself.  And  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica^  if  accepted  as  authoritative,  will  go 
far  toward  emphasizing  and  extending  that  ignor- 
ance. Furthermore,  it  will  lessen  even  the 
meagre  esteem  in  which  we  now  hold  our  own 
accomplishments  and  potentialities;  for,  as  the 
following  pages  will  show,  the  Britannica  has  per- 
sistently discriminated  against  all  American  en- 
deavor, not  only  in  the  brevity  of  the  articles  and 
biographies  relating  to  this  country  and  in  the 
omissions  of  many  of  our  leading  artists  and 
scientists,  but  in  the  bibliographies  as  well.     And 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  21 

it  must  be  remembered  that  broad  and  unpreju- 
diced bibliographies  are  essential  to  any  worthy 
encyclopaedia:  they  are  the  key  to  the  entire  tone 
of  the  work.  The  conspicuous  absence  of  many 
high  American  authorities,  and  the  inclusion  of 
numerous  reactionary  and  often  dubious  English 
authorities,  sum  up  the  Britannic  a!  s  attitude. 

However,  as  I  have  said,  America,  if  the  prin- 
cipal, is  not  the  only  country  discriminated 
against.  France  has  fallen  a  victim  to  the  En- 
cyclopaedia's suburban  patriotism,  and  scant  jus- 
tice is  done  her  true  greatness.  Russia,  perhaps 
even  more  than  France,  is  culturally  neglected; 
and  modern  Italy's  aesthetic  achievements  are 
given  slight  consideration.  Germany's  science 
and  her  older  culture  fare  much  better  at  the 
hands  of  the  Britannica^s  editors  than  do  the  ef- 
forts of  several  other  nations;  but  Germany,  too, 
suffers  from  neglect  in  the  field  of  modern  en- 
deavor. 

Even  Ireland  does  not  escape  English  preju- 
dice. In  fact,  it  can  be  only  on  grounds  of 
national,  political,  and  personal  animosity  that 
one  can  account  for  the  grossly  biased  manner  in 
which  Ireland,  her  history  and  her  culture,  is  dealt 
with.  To  take  but  one  example,  regard  the 
Britannica's  treatment  of  what  has  come  to  be 
known  as  the  Irish  Literary  Revival.     Among 


22        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

those  conspicuous,  and  in  one  or  two  instances 
world-renowned,  figures  who  do  not  receive  bio- 
graphies are  J.  M.  Synge,  Lady  Gregory,  Lionel 
Johnson,  Douglas  Hyde,  and  William  Larminie. 
(Although  Lionel  Johnson's  name  appears  in  the 
article  on  English  literature,  it  does  not  appear 
in  the  Index — a  careless  omission  which,  in  vic- 
timizing an  Irishman  and  not  an  Englishman,  is 
perfectly  in  keeping  with  the  deliberate  omissions 
of  the  Britannzca.) 

Furthermore,  there  are  many  famous  Irish 
writers  whose  names  are  not  so  much  as  men- 
tioned in  the  entire  Encyclopaedia — for  instance, 
Standish  O'Grady,  James  H.  Cousins,  John  Tod- 
hunter,  Katherine  Tynan,  T.  W.  RoUeston,  Nora 
Hopper,  Jane  Barlow,  Emily  Lawless,  "A.  E." 
(George  W.  Russell),  John  Eglinton,  Charles 
Kickam,  Dora  Sigerson  Shorter,  Shan  Bullock, 
and  Seumas  MacManus.  Modern  Irish  liter- 
ature is  treated  with  a  brevity  and  an  injustice 
which  are  nothing  short  of  contemptible;  and 
what  little  there  is  concerning  the  new  Irish  re- 
naissance is  scattered  here  and  there  in  the  arti- 
cles on  English  literature!  Elsewhere  I  have 
indicated  other  signs  of  petty  anti-Irish  bias, 
especially  in  the  niggardly  and  stupid  treatment 
accorded  George  Moore, 

Although  such  flagrant  inadequacies  in  the  case 


COLONIZING  AMERICA  23 

of  European  art  would  form  a  sufficient  basis  for 
protest,  the  really  serious  grounds  for  our  indigna- 
tion are  those  which  have  to  do  with  the  Britan- 
nica's  neglect  of  America.  That  is  why  I  have 
laid  such  emphasis  on  this  phase  of  the  Encyclo- 
psedia.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  that  this  coun- 
try throw  off  the  yoke  of  England's  intellectual 
despotism  before  it  can  have  a  free  field  for  an 
individual  and  national  cultural  evolution. 
America  has  already  accomplished  much.  She 
has  contributed  many  great  figures  to  the  world's 
progress.  And  she  is  teeming  with  tremendous 
and  splendid  possibilities.  To-day  she  stands  in 
need  of  no  other  nation's  paternal  guidance.  In 
view  of  her  great  powers,  of  her  fine  intellectual 
strength,  of  her  wide  imagination,  of  her  already 
brilliant  past,  and  of  her  boundless  and  exalted 
future,  such  a  work  as  the  Encyclopdsdia  BritaU' 
nka  should  be  resented  by  every  American  to 
whom  the  welfare  of  his  country  is  of  foremost 
concern,  and  in  whom  there  exists  one  atom  of 
national  pride. 


THE    NOVEL 

Let  us  inspect  first  the  manner  in  which  the 
world's  great  modern  novelists  and  story-tellers 
are  treated  in  the  Encyclopedia  Brztannica.  No 
better  department  could  be  selected  for  the  pur- 
pose; for  literature  is  the  most  universal  and 
popular  art.  The  world's  great  figures  in  fiction 
are  far  more  widely  known  than  those  in  painting 
or  music ;  and  since  it  is  largely  through  literature 
that  a  nation  absorbs  its  cultural  ideas,  especial 
interest  attaches  to  the  way  that  writers  are  inter- 
preted and  criticised  in  an  encyclopaedia. 

It  is  disappointing,  therefore,  to  discover  the 
distorted  and  unjust  viewpoint  of  the  Brztannica. 
An  aggressive  insular  spirit  is  shown  in  both  the 
general  literary  articles  and  in  the  biographies. 
The  importance  of  English  writers  is  constantly 
exaggerated  at  the  expense  of  foreign  authors. 
The  number  of  biographies  of  British  writers  in- 
cluded in  the  Encyclopaedia  far  overweighs  the 
biographical    material    accorded    the    writers    of 

other   nations.     And   superlatives    of    the    most 

24 


THE  NOVEL  2? 

sweeping  kind  are  commonly  used  in  describing 
the  genius  of  these  British  authors,  whereas  in  the 
majority  of  cases  outside  of  England,  criticism, 
when  offered  at  all,  is  cool  and  circumscribed  and 
not  seldom  adverse.  There  are  few  British  writ- 
ers of  any  note  whatever  who  are  not  taken  into 
account;  but  many  authors  of  very  considerable 
importance  belonging  to  France,  Germany,  Italy, 
Russia,  and  the  United  States  are  omitted  en- 
tirely. 

In  the  Encyclopsedia's  department  of  literature, 
as  in  other  departments  of  the  arts,  the  pious 
middle-class  culture  of  England  is  carefully  and 
consistently  forced  to  the  front.  English  pro- 
vincialism and  patriotism  not  only  dominate  the 
criticism  of  this  department,  but  dictate  the 
amount  of  space  which  is  allotted  the  different 
nations.  The  result  is  that  one  seeking  in  this 
encyclopedia  adequate  and  unprejudiced  informa- 
tion concerning  literature  will  fail  completely  in 
his  quest.  No  mention  whatever  is  made  of  many 
of  the  world's  great  novelists  (provided,  of  course, 
they  do  not  happen  to  be  British) ;  and  the  in- 
formation given  concerning  the  foreign  authors 
who  are  included  is,  on  the  whole,  meagre  and 
biased.  If,  as  is  natural,  one  should  judge  the 
relative  importance  of  the  world's  novelists  by 
the  space  devoted  to  them,  one  could  not  escape 


26        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

the  impression  that  the  literary  genius  of  the 
world  resides  almost  exclusively  in  British  writers. 

This  prejudiced  and  disproportionate  treatment 
of  literature  would  not  be  so  regrettable  if  the 
Britannica's  criticisms  were  cosmopolitan  in  char- 
acter, or  if  its  standard  of  judgment  was  a  purely 
literary  one.  But  the  criteria  of  the  Encyclo- 
paedia's editors  are,  in  the  main,  moral  and  puri- 
tanical. Authors  are  judged  not  so  much  by  their 
literary  and  artistic  merits  as  by  their  bourgeois 
virtue,  their  respectability  and  inoffensiveness. 
Consequently  it  is  not  even  the  truly  great  writers 
of  Great  Britain  who  are  recommended  the  most 
highly,  but  those  middle-class  literary  idols  who 
teach  moral  lessons  and  whose  purpose  it  is  to 
uplift  mankind.  The  Presbyterian  complex,  so 
evident  throughout  the  Encyclopsedia's  critiques, 
finds  in  literature  a  fertile  field  for  operation. 

Because  of  the  limitations  of  space,  I  shall  con- 
fine myself  in  this  chapter  to  modern  literature. 
I  have,  however,  inspected  the  manner  in  which 
the  older  literature  is  set  forth  in  the  Encyclo' 
padia  Britannica;  and  there,  as  elsewhere,  is  dis- 
cernible the  same  provincialism,  the  same  theolog- 
ical point  of  view,  the  same  flamboyant  exag- 
geration of  English  writers,  the  same  neglect  of 
foreign  genius.  As  a  reference  book  the  Britaw 
nica  is  chauvinistic,  distorted,  inadequate,  dispro- 


THE  NOVEL  27 

portioned,  and  woefully  behind  the  times.  De- 
spite the  fact  that  the  Eleventh  Edition  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been  brought  up  to  date,  few  recent 
writers  are  included,  and  those  few  are  largely 
second-rate  writers  of  Great  Britain. 

Let  us  first  regard  the  gross  discrepancies  in 
space  between  the  biographies  of  English  authors 
and  those  of  the  authors  of  other  nations.  To 
begin  with,  the  number  of  biographies  of  English 
writers  is  nearly  as  many  as  is  given  all  the  writ- 
ers of  France  and  Germany  combined.  Sir 
Walter  Scott  is  given  no  less  than  thirteen  col- 
umns, whereas  Balzac  has  only  seven  columns, 
Victor  Hugo  only  a  little  over  four  columns,  and 
Turgueniev  only  a  little  over  one  column.  Sam- 
uel Richardson  is  given  nearly  four  columns, 
whereas  Flaubert  has  only  two  columns,  Dos- 
toievsky less  than  two  columns,  and  Daudet  only 
a  column  and  a  third  I  Mrs.  Oliphant  is  given 
over  a  column,  more  space  than  is  allotted  to  Ana- 
tole  France,  Coppee,  or  the  Goncourts.  George 
Meredith  is  given  six  columns,  more  space  than  is 
accorded  Flaubert,  de  Maupassant  and  Zola  put 
together  I  Bulwer-Lytton  has  two  columns,  more 
space  than  is  given  Dostoievsky.  Dickens  is 
given  two  and  a  half  times  as  much  space  as  Vic- 
tor Hugo;  and  George  Eliot,  Trollope,  and  Stev- 
enson each  has  considerably  more  space  than  de 


28        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Maupassant,  and  nearly  twice  as  much  space  as 
Flaubert.  Anthony  Hope  has  almost  an  equal 
amount  of  space  with  Turgueniev,  nearly  twice 
as  much  as  Gorky,  and  more  than  William  Dean 
Howells.  Kipling,  Barrie,  Mrs.  Gaskell,  Mrs. 
Humphry  Ward,  and  Felicia  Hemans  are  each 
accorded  more  space  than  either  Zola  or  Mark 
Twain.  .  .  .  Many  more  similar  examples  of  in- 
justice could  be  given,  but  enough  have  been  set 
down  to  indicate  the  manner  in  which  British 
authors  are  accorded  an  importance  far  beyond 
their  deserts. 

Of  Jane  Austen,  to  whom  is  given  more  space 
than  to  either  Daudet  or  Turgueniev,  we  read 
that  "it  is  generally  agreed  by  the  best  critics  that 
Miss  Austen  has  never  been  approached  in  her 
own  domain."  What,  one  wonders,  of  Balzac's 
stories  of  provincial  life?  Did  he,  after  all,  not 
even  approach  Miss  Austen*?  Mrs.  Gaskell's 
Cr an  ford  "is  unanimously  accepted  as  a  classic" ; 
and  she  is  given  an  equal  amount  of  space  with 
Dostoievsky  and  Flaubert  I 

George  Eliot's  biography  draws  three  and  a 
half  columns,  twice  as  much  space  as  Stendhal's, 
and  half  again  as  much  as  de  Maupassant's.  In 
it  we  encounter  the  following  astonishing  speci- 
men of  criticism:     No  right  estimate  of  her  as 


THE  NOVEL  29 

an  artist  or  a  philosopher  "can  be  formed  without 
a  steady  recollection  of  her  infinite  capacity  for 
mental  suffering,  and  her  need  of  human  sup- 
port." Just  what  these  conditions  have  to  do 
with  an  aesthetic  or  philosophic  judgment  of  her 
is  not  made  clear;  but  the  critic  finally  brings  him- 
self to  add  that  "one  has  only  to  compare  Romola 
or  Daniel  Deronda  with  the  compositions  of  any 
author  except  herself  to  realize  the  greatness  of 
her  designs  and  the  astonishing  gifts  brought  to 
their  final  accomplishment." 

The  evangelical  motif  enters  more  strongly  in 
the  biography  of  George  Macdonald,  who  draws 
about  equal  space  with  Gorky,  Huysmans,  and 
Barres.  Here  we  learn  that  Macdonald's  "moral 
enthusiasm  exercised  great  influence  upon  thought- 
ful minds."  Ainsworth,  the  author  of  those 
shoddy  historical  melodramas,  Jack  Sheppard  and 
Guy  Fawkes,  is  also  given  a  biography  equal  in 
length  to  that  of  Gorky,  Huysmans,  and  Barres; 
and  we  are  told  that  he  wrote  tales  which,  despite 
all  their  shortcomings,  were  "invariably  instruc- 
tive, clean  and  manly."  Mrs.  Ewing,  too, 
profited  by  her  pious  proclivities,  for  her  biogra- 
phy takes  up  almost  as  much  space  as  that  of  the 
"moral"  Macdonald  and  the  "manly"  Ainsworth. 
Her  stories  are  "sound  and  wholesome  in  mat- 


30        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ter,"  and  besides,  her  best  tales  "have  never  been 
surpassed  in  the  style  of  literature  to  which  they 
belong," 

Respectability  and  moral  refinement  were 
qualities  also  possessed  by  G.  P.  R.  James,  whose 
biography  is  equal  in  length  to  that  of  William 
Dean  Howells.  In  it  there  is  quite  a  long  com- 
parison of  James  with  Dumas,  though  it  is 
frankly  admitted  that  as  an  artist  James  was  in- 
ferior. His  plots  were  poor,  his  descriptions  were 
weak,  and  his  dialogue  was  bad.  Therefore  "his 
very  best  books  fall  far  below  Les  Trois  Mous- 
quetairesT  But,  it  is  added,  "James  never  re- 
sorted to  illegitimate  methods  to  attract  readers, 
and  deserves  such  credit  as  may  be  due  to  a  pur- 
veyor of  amusement  who  never  caters  to  the  less 
creditable  tastes  of  his  guests."  In  other  words, 
say  what  you  will  about  James's  technique,  he 
was,  at  any  rate,  an  upright  and  impeccable 
gentleman  I 

Even  Mrs.  Sarah  Norton's  lofty  moral  nature 
is  rewarded  with  biographical  space  greater  than 
that  of  Huysmans  or  Gorky.  Mrs.  Norton,  we 
learn,  "was  not  a  mere  writer  of  elegant  trifles, 
but  was  one  of  the  priestesses  of  the  'reforming' 
spirit."  One  of  her  books  was  "a  most  eloquent 
and  rousing  condemnation  of  child  labor";  and 
her  poems  were  "written  with  charming  tender- 


THE  NOVEL  31 

ness  and  grace."  Great,  indeed,  are  the  rewards 
of  virtue,  if  not  in  life,  at  least  in  the  Encyclo- 
padia  Britannica. 

On  the  other  hand,  several  English  authors  are 
condemned  for  their  lack  of  nicety  and  respec- 
tability. Trollope,  for  instance,  lacked  that  ele- 
gance and  delicacy  of  sentiment  so  dear  to  the  En- 
cyclopaedia editor's  heart.  "He  is,"  we  read, 
"sometimes  absolutely  vulgar — that  is  to  say,  he 
does  not  deal  with  low  life,  but  shows,  though 
always  robust  and  pure  in  morality,  a  certain 
coarseness  of  taste." 

Turning  from  the  vulgar  but  pure  Trollope  to 
Charles  Reade,  we  find  more  of  this  same  kind  of 
criticism:  "His  view  of  human  life,  especially 
of  the  life  of  women,  is  almost  brutal  .  .  .  and 
he  cannot,  with  all  his  skill  as  a  story-teller,  be 
numbered  among  the  great  artists  who  warm  the 
heart  and  help  to  improve  the  conduct."  (Here 
we  have  the  Britannica's  true  attitude  toward 
literature.  That  art,  in  order  to  be  great,  must 
warm  the  heart,  improve  the  conduct,  and  show 
one  the  way  to  righteousness.)  Nor  is  Ouida  to 
be  numbered  among  the  great  uplifters.  In  her 
derogatory  half-column  biography  we  are  in- 
formed that  "on  grounds  of  morality  of  taste 
Ouida's  novels  may  be  condemned"  as  they  are 
"frequently  unwholesome." 


32        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Two  typical  examples  of  the  manner  in  which 
truly  great  English  writers,  representative  of  the 
best  English  culture,  are  neglected  in  favor  of 
those  writers  who  epitomize  England's  provincial 
piety,  are  to  be  found  in  the  biographies  of  George 
Moore  and  Joseph  Conrad,  neither  of  whom  is 
concerned  with  improving  the  readers'  conduct  or 
even  with  warming  their  hearts.  These  two  nov- 
elists, the  greatest  modem  authors  which  England 
has  produced,  are  dismissed  peremptorily.  Con- 
rad's biography  draws  but  eighteen  lines,  about 
one-third  of  the  space  given  to  Marie  Corelli ;  and 
the  only  praise  accorded  him  is  for  his  vigorous 
style  and  brilliant  descriptions.  In  this  super- 
ficial criticism  we  have  an  example  of  ineptitude, 
if  not  of  downright  stupidity,  rarely  equaled  even 
by  newspaper  reviewers.  Not  half  of  Conrad's 
books  are  mentioned,  the  last  one  to  be  recorded 
being  dated  1906,  nearly  eleven  years  ago!  Yet 
this  is  the  Encyclopedia  which  is  supposed  to  have 
been  brought  up  to  date  and  to  be  adequate  for 
purposes  of  reference  I 

In  the  case  of  George  Moore  there  is  less  excuse 
for  such  gross  injustice  (save  that  he  is  Irish), 
for  Moore  has  long  been  recognized  as  one  of  the 
great  moderns.  Yet  his  biography  draws  less 
space  than  that  of  Jane  Porter,  Gilbert  Parker, 
Maurice   Hewlett,    Rider   Haggard,    or   H.    G. 


THE  NOVEL  33 

Wells;  half  of  the  space  given  to  Anthony  Hope; 
and  only  a  fourth  of  the  space  given  to  Mrs.  Gas- 
kell  and  to  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward!  A  Mum- 
trier's  Wife^  we  learn,  has  "decidedly  repulsive 
elements";  and  the  entire  criticism  of  Esther 
Waters^  admittedly  one  of  the  greatest  of  modern 
English  novels,  is  that  it  is  "a  strong  story  with 
an  anti-gambling  motive."  It  would  seem  almost 
incredible  that  even  the  tin-pot  evangelism  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  would  be  stretched  to 
such  a  length, — but  there  you  have  the  criticism 
of  Esther  Waters  set  down  word  for  word.  The 
impelling  art  of  this  novel  means  nothing  to  the 
Encyclopedia's  critic:  he  cannot  see  the  book's 
significance;  nor  does  he  recognize  its  admitted 
importance  to  modem  literature.  To  him  it  is 
an  anti-gambling  tract  I  And  because,  perhaps, 
he  can  find  no  uplift  theme  in  A  Mummer's  Wife, 
that  book  is  repulsive  to  him.  Such  is  the  culture 
America  is  being  fed  on — at  a  price. 

Thomas  Hardy,  another  one  of  England's  im- 
portant modems,  is  condemned  for  his  attitude 
toward  women:  his  is  a  "man's  point  of  view" 
and  "more  French  than  English."  (We  wonder 
if  this  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  sentimental 
James  M.  Barrie  is  accorded  more  space  and 
greater  praise.)  Samuel  Butler  is  another  in- 
tellectual English  writer  who  has  apparently  been 


34        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  Presbyterian  respectabil- 
ity. He  is  given  less  than  a  column,  a  little  more 
than  half  the  space  given  the  patriotic,  tub- 
thumping  Kipling,  and  less  than  half  the  space 
given  Felicia  Hemans.  Nor  is  there  any  criticism 
of  his  work.  The  Way  of  all  Flesh  is  merely 
mentioned  in  the  list  of  his  books.  Gissing,  an- 
other highly  enlightened  English  writer,  is  ac- 
corded less  space  than  Jane  Porter,  only  about 
half  the  space  given  Anthony  Hope,  and  less 
space  than  is  drawn  by  Marie  Corelli !  There  is 
almost  no  criticism  of  his  work — a  mere  record  of 
facts. 

Mrs.  M.  E.  Braddon,  however,  author  of  The 
Trail  of  the  Serpent  and  Lady  Audlefs  Secret^ 
is  criticised  in  flattering  terms.  The  biography 
speaks  of  her  "large  and  appreciative  public,"  and 
apology  is  made  for  her  by  the  statement  that  her 
works  give  "the  great  body  of  readers  of  fiction 
exactly  what  they  require."  But  why  an  apology 
is  necessary  one  is  unable  to  say  since  Aurora 
Floyd  is  "a  novel  with  a  strong  affinity  to  Ma- 
dame Bovary."  Mrs.  Braddon  and  Flaubert  I 
Truly  a  staggering  alliance  I 

Mrs.  Henry  Wood,  the  author  of  East  Lynne, 
is  given  more  space  than  Conrad ;  and  her  Johnny 
Ludlow  tales  are  "the  most  artistic"  of  her  works. 
But  the  "artistic"  Mrs.  Wood  has  no  preference 


THE  NOVEL  3^ 

over  Julia  Kavanagh.  This  latter  lady,  we  dis- 
cover, draws  equal  space  with  Marcel  Prevost; 
and  she  "handles  her  French  themes  with  fidelity 
and  skill."  Judging  from  this  praise  and  the 
fact  that  Prevost  gets  no  praise  but  is  accused  of 
having  written  an  "exaggerated"  and  "revolting" 
book,  we  can  only  conclude  that  the  English 
authoress  handles  her  French  themes  better  than 
does  Prevost. 

George  Meredith  is  accorded  almost  as  much 
biographical  space  as  Balzac;  and  in  the  article 
there  appears  such  qualifying  words  as  "seer," 
"greatness,"  and  "master."  The  impression 
given  is  that  he  was  greater  than  Balzac.  In 
Jane  Porter's  biography,  which  is  longer  than 
that  of  Huysmans,  we  read  of  her  "picturesque 
power  of  narration."  Even  of  Samuel  Warren, 
to  whom  three-fourths  of  a  column  is  allotted 
(more  space  than  is  given  to  Bret  Harte,  Lafcadio 
Hearn,  or  Gorky),  it  is  said  that  the  interest  in 
Ten  Thousand  a  Year  "is  made  to  run  with  a 
powerful  current." 

Power  also  is  discovered  in  the  works  of  Lucas 
Malet.  The  Wages  of  Sin  was  "a  powerful 
story"  which  "attracted  great  attention" ;  and  her 
next  book  "had  an  even  greater  success."  Joseph 
Henry  Shorthouse,  who  is  given  more  space  than 
Frank  Norris  and  Stephen  Crane  combined,  pes- 


36        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

sessed  "high  earnestness  of  purpose,  a  luxuriant 
style  and  a  genuinely  spiritual  quality."  Though 
lacking  dramatic  facility  and  a  workmanlike  con- 
duct of  narrative,  "he  had  almost  every  other 
quality  of  the  bom  novelist."  After  this  remark 
it  is  obviously  necessary  to  revise  our  aesthetic 
judgment  in  regard  to  the  religious  author  of  John 
Ingle  sunt. 

Grant  Allen,  alas  I  lacked  the  benevolent  qual- 
ities of  the  "spiritual"  Mr.  Shorthouse,  and — as 
a  result,  no  doubt — he  is  given  less  space,  and  his 
work  and  vogue  are  spoken  of  disparagingly. 
One  of  his  books  was  a  succes  de  scandale  "on  ac- 
count of  its  treatment  of  the  sexual  problem." 
Mr.  Allen  apparently  neither  "warmed  the  heart" 
nor  "improved  the  conduct"  of  his  audience.  On 
the  other  hand,  Mrs.  Oliphant,  in  a  long  bio- 
graphy, is  praised  for  her  "sympathetic  touch"; 
and  we  learn  furthermore  that  she  was  long  and 
"honorably"  connected  with  the  firm  of  Black- 
wood. Maurice  Hewlett  has  nearly  a  half- 
column  biography  full  of  praise.  Conan  Doyle, 
also,  is  spoken  of  highly.  Kipling's  biography, 
longer  than  Mark  Twain's,  Bourget's,  Daudet's, 
or  Gogol's,  also  contains  praise.  In  H.  G.  Wells's 
biography,  which  is  longer  than  that  of  George 
Moore,  "his  very  high  place"  as  a  novelist  is 
spoken  of;  and  Anthony  Hope  draws  abundant 


THE  NOVEL  37 

praise  in  a  biography  almost  as  long  as  that  of 
Turgueniev  I 

In  the  treatment  of  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward, 
however,  we  have  the  key  to  the  literary  attitude 
of  the  Encyclopaedia.  Here  is  an  author  who 
epitomizes  that  middle-class  respectability  which 
forms  the  Britannica^s  editors'  standard  of  artistic 
judgment,  and  who  represents  that  virtuous  sub- 
urban culture  which  colors  the  Encyclopaedia's 
art  departments.  It  is  not  surprising  therefore 
that,  of  all  recent  novelists,  she  should  be  given 
the  place  of  honor.  Her  biography  extends  to 
a  column  and  two-thirds,  much  longer  than  the 
biography  of  Turgueniev,  Zola,  Daudet,  Mark 
Twain,  or  Henry  James;  and  over  twice  the 
length  of  William  Dean  Howells's  biography. 
Even  more  space  is  devoted  to  her  than  is  given 
to  the  biography  of  Poe  I 

Nor  in  this  disproportionate  amount  of  space 
alone  is  Mrs.  Ward's  superiority  indicated.  The 
article  contains  the  most  fulsome  praise,  and  we 
are  told  that  her  "eminence  among  latter-day 
women  novelists  arises  from  her  high  conception 
of  the  art  of  fiction  and  her  strong  grasp  on  intel- 
lectual and  social  problems,  her  descriptive  power 
.  .  .  and  her  command  of  a  broad  and  vigorous 
prose  style."  (The  same  enthusiastic  gentleman 
who  wrote  Mrs.  Ward's  biography  also  wrote  the 


38        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

biography  of  Oscar  Wilde.  The  latter  is  giveiv 
much  less  space,  and  the  article  on  him  is  a  petty, 
contemptible  attack  written  from  the  standpoint 
of  a  self-conscious  puritan.) 

Thackeray  is  given  equal  space  with  Balzac, 
and  in  the  course  of  his  biography  it  is  said  that 
some  have  wanted  to  compare  him  with  Dickens 
but  that  such  a  comparison  would  be  unprofitable. 
"It  is  better  to  recognize  simply  that  the  two 
novelists  stood,  each  in  his  own  way,  distinctly 
above  even  their  most  distinguished  contempor- 
aries." (Both  Balzac  and  Victor  Hugo  were 
their  contemporaries,  and  to  say  that  Thackeray 
stood  "distinctly  above"  them  is  to  butcher  French 
genius  to  make  an  English  holiday.) 

In  Dickens's  biography,  which  is  nearly  half 
again  as  long  as  that  of  Balzac  and  nearly  two 
and  a  half  times  as  long  as  that  of  Hugo,  we  en- 
counter such  words  and  phrases  as  "masterpieces" 
and  "wonderful  books."  No  books  of  his  sur- 
passed the  early  chapters  of  Great  Expectations  in 
"perfection  of  technique  or  in  the  mastery  of  all 
the  resources  of  the  novelist's  art."  Here,  as  in 
many  other  places,  patriotic  license  has  obviously 
been  permitted  to  run  wild.  Where,  outside  of 
provincial  England,  will  you  find  another  critic, 
no  matter  how  appreciative  of  Dickens's  talent, 
who  will  agree  that  he  possessed  "perfection  of 


THE  NOVEL  39 

technique"  and  a  "mastery  of  all  the  resources  of 
the  novelist's  art'"?  But,  as  if  this  perfervid 
rhetoric  were  not  sufficiently  extreme,  Swinburne 
is  quoted  as  saying  that  to  have  created  Abel 
Magwitch  alone  is  to  be  a  god  indeed  among  the 
creators  of  deathless  men.  (This  means  that 
Dickens  was  a  god  beside  the  mere  mundane  cre- 
ator of  Lucien  de  Rubempre,  Goriot,  and  Eugenie 
Grander. )  And,  again,  on  top  of  this  unreasoned 
enthusiasm,  it  is  added  that  in  "intensity  and 
range  of  creative  genius  he  can  hardly  be  said  to 
have  any  modern  rival." 

Let  us  turn  to  Balzac  who  was  not,  according 
to  this  encyclopsedia,  even  Dickens's  rival  in  in- 
tensity and  range  of  creative  genius.  Here  we 
find  derogatory  criticism  which  indeed  bears  out 
the  contention  of  Dickens's  biographer  that  the 
author  of  David  Copperfield  was  superior  to  the 
author  of  Lost  Illusions.  Balzac,  we  read,  "is 
never  quite  real."  His  style  "lacks  force  and 
adequacy  to  his  own  purpose."  And  then  we  are 
given  this  final  bit  of  insular  criticism:  "It  is 
idle  to  claim  for  Balzac  an  absolute  supremacy 
in  the  novel,  while  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
any  single  book  of  his,  or  any  scene  of  a  book,  or 
even  any  single  character  or  situation,  is  among 
the  very  greatest  books,  scenes,  characters,  situ- 
ations in  literature."     Alas,  poor  Balzac! — the 


40        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

inferior  of  both  Dickens  and  Thackeray — the 
writer  who,  if  the  judgment  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  is  to  be  accepted,  created  no  book, 
scene,  character  or  situation  which  is  among  the 
greatest  I  Thus  are  the  world's  true  geniuses  dis- 
paraged for  the  benefit  of  moral  English  culture. 

De  Vigny  receives  adverse  criticism.  He  is 
compared  unfavorably  to  Sir  Walter  Scott,  and  is 
attacked  for  his  "pessimistic"  philosophy.  De 
Musset  "had  genius,  though  not  genius  of  that 
strongest  kind  which  its  possessor  can  always  keep 
in  check" — after  the  elegant  and  repressed  man- 
ner of  English  writers,  no  doubt.  De  Musset's 
own  character  worked  "against  his  success  as  a 
writer,"  and  his  break  with  George  Sand  "brought 
out  the  weakest  side  of  his  moral  character." 
(Again  the  church-bell  motif.)  Gautier,  that 
sensuous  and  un-English  Frenchman,  wrote  a  book 
called  Mademoiselle  de  Maupin  which  was  "un- 
fitted by  its  subject,  and  in  parts  by  its  treatment, 
for  general  perusal." 

Dumas  pere  is  praised,  largely  we  infer,  be- 
cause his  work  was  sanctioned  by  Englishmen: 
"The  three  musketeers  are  as  famous  in  England 
as  in  France.  Thackeray  could  read  about  Athos 
from  sunrise  to  sunset  with  the  utmost  content- 
ment of  mind,  and  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  and 
Andrew  Lang  have  paid  tribute  to  the  band." 


THE  NOVEL  41 

Pierre  Loti,  however,  in  a  short  biography,  hardly 
meets  with  British  approval.  "Many  of  his  best 
books  are  long  sobs  of  remorseful  memory,  so  per- 
sonal, so  intimate,  that  an  English  reader  is 
amazed  to  find  such  depth  of  feeling  compatible 
with  the  power  of  minutely  and  publicly  record- 
ing what  is  felt."  Loti,  like  de  Musset,  lacked 
that  prudish  restraint  which  is  so  admirable  a  vir- 
tue in  English  writers.  Daudet,  in  a  short  and 
very  inadequate  biography,  is  written  down  as  an 
imitator  of  Dickens;  and  in  Anatole  France's 
biography,  which  is  shorter  than  Marryat's  or 
Mrs.  Oliphant's,  no  adequate  indication  of  his 
genius  is  given. 

2^1a  is  treated  with  greater  unfairness  than  per- 
haps any  other  French  author.  Zola  has  always 
been  disliked  in  England,  and  his  English  pub- 
lisher was  jailed  by  the  guardians  of  British 
morals.  But  it  is  somewhat  astonishing  to  find  to 
what  lengths  this  insular  prejudice  has  gone  in 
the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica.  Zola's  biography, 
which  is  shorter  than  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward's,  is 
written  by  a  former  Accountant  General  of  the 
English  army,  and  contains  adverse  comment  be- 
cause he  did  not  idealize  "the  nobler  elements  in 
human  nature,"  although,  it  is  said,  "his  later 
books  show  improvement."  Such  scant  treat- 
ment of  Zola  reveals  the  unfairness  of  extreme 


42        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

prejudice,  for  no  matter  what  the  nationality,  re- 
ligion, or  taste  of  the  critic,  he  must,  in  all  fair- 
ness, admit  that  Zola  is  a  more  important  and 
influential  figure  in  modern  letters  than  Mrs. 
Humphry  Ward. 

In  the  biography  of  George  Sand  we  learn  that 
*'as  a  thinker,  George  Eliot  is  vastly  [sic]  su- 
perior; her  knowledge  is  more  profound,  and  her 
psychological  analysis  subtler  and  more  scien- 
tific." Almost  nothing  is  said  of  Constant's  writ- 
ings; and  in  the  mere  half-column  sketch  of  Huys- 
mans  there  are  only  a  few  biographical  facts  with 
a  list  of  his  books.  Of  Stendhal  there  is  prac- 
tically no  criticism;  and  Coppee  "exhibits  all  the 
defects  of  his  qualities."  Rene  Bazin  draws  only 
seventeen  lines — a  bare  record  of  facts;  and 
Edouard  Rod  is  given  a  third  of  a  column  with  no 
criticism. 

Despite  the  praise  given  Victor  Hugo,  his 
biography,  from  a  critical  standpoint,  is  prac- 
tically worthless.  In  it  there  is  no  sense  of  crit- 
ical proportion :  it  is  a  mere  panegyric  which  defi- 
nitely states  that  Hugo  was  greater  than  Balzac. 
This  astonishing  and  incompetent  praise  is  ac- 
counted for  when  we  discover  that  it  was  written 
by  Swinburne  who,  as  is  generally  admitted,  was 
a  better  poet  than  critic.  In  fact,  turning  to 
Swinburne's   biography,    we   find   the   following 


THE  NOVEL  43 

valuation  of  Swinburne  as  critic:  "The  very 
qualities  which  gave  his  poetr}^  its  unique  charm 
and  character  were  antipathetic  to  his  success  as 
a  critic.  He  had  very  little  capacity  for  cool  and 
reasoned  judgment,  and  his  criticism  is  often  a 
tangled  thicket  of  prejudices  and  predilections. 
.  .  .  Not  one  of  his  studies  is  satisfactory  as  a 
whole;  the  faculty  for  the  sustained  exercise  of 
the  judgment  was  denied  him,  and  even  his  best 
appreciations  are  disfigured  by  error  in  taste  and 
proportion." 

Here  we  have  the  Encyclopsedia's  own  con- 
demnation of  some  of  its  material — a  personal 
and  frank  confession  of  its  own  gross  inadequacy 
and  bias  I  And  Swinburne,  let  it  be  noted,  con- 
tributes no  less  than  ten  articles  on  some  of  the 
most  important  literary  men  in  history!  If  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  was  as  nai'f  and  honest 
about  revealing  the  incapacity  of  all  of  its  critics 
as  it  is  in  the  case  of  Swinburne,  there  would  be 
no  need  for  me  to  call  attention  to  those  other 
tangled  thickets  of  prejudices  and  predilections 
which  have  enmeshed  so  many  of  the  gentlemen 
who  write  for  it. 

But  the  inadequacy  of  the  Britannica  as  a  ref- 
erence book  on  modern  French  letters  can  best  be 
judged  by  the  fact  that  there  appears  no  bio- 
graphical mention  whatever  of  Romain  Rolland, 


44        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Pierre  de  Coulevain,  Tinayre,  Rene  Boylesve, 
Jean  and  Jerome  Tharaud,  Henry  Bordeaux,  or 
Pierre  Mille.  Rolland  is  the  most  gifted  and 
conspicuous  figure  of  the  new  school  of  writers  in 
France  to-day,  and  the  chief  representative  of  a 
new  phase  of  French  literature.  Pierre  de  Coule- 
vain stands  at  the  head  of  the  women  novelists 
in  modern  France;  and  her  books  are  widely 
known  in  both  England  and  America.  Madame 
Tinayre's  art,  to  quote  an  eminent  English  critic, 
"reflects  the  dawn  of  the  new  French  spirit." 
Boylesve  stands  for  the  classic  revival  in  French 
letters,  and  ranks  in  the  forefront  of  contempor- 
ary European  writers.  The  Tharauds  became 
famous  as  novelists  as  far  back  as  1902,  and  hold 
a  high  place  among  the  writers  of  Young  France. 
Bordeaux's  novels  have  long  been  familiar  in 
translation  even  to  American  readers;  and  Pierre 
Mille  holds  very  much  the  same  place  in  France 
that  Kipling  does  in  England.  Yet  not  only  does 
not  one  of  these  noteworthy  authors  have  a 
biography,  but  their  names  do  not  appear 
throughout  the  entire  Encyclopaedia  I 

In  the  article  on  French  Literature  the  literary 
renaissance  of  Young  France  is  not  mentioned. 
There  apparently  has  been  no  effort  at  making  the 
account  modern  or  up-to-date  in  either  its  critical 
or  historical  side;  and  if  you  desire  information 


THE  NOVEL  45 

on  the  recent  activities  in  French  letters — activ- 
ities of  vital  importance  and  including  several  of 
the  greatest  names  in  contemporary  literature — 
you  need  not  seek  it  in  the  Britannica^  that  "su- 
preme" book  of  knowledge;  for  apparently  only 
modern  English  achievement  is  judged  worthy  of 
consideration. 

Modern  Russian  literature  suffers  even  more 
from  neglect.  Dostoievsky  has  less  than  two 
columns,  less  space  than  Charles  Reade,  George 
Borrow,  Mrs.  Gaskell,  or  Charles  Kingsley. 
Gogol  has  a  column  and  a  quarter,  far  less  space 
than  that  given  Felicia  Hemans,  James  M.  Barrie, 
of  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward.  Gorky  is  allotted  little 
over  half  a  column,  one-third  of  the  space  given 
Kipling,  and  equal  space  with  Ouida  and  Gilbert 
Parker.  Tolstoi,  however,  seems  to  have  in- 
flamed the  British  imagination.  His  sentimental 
philosophy,  his  socialistic  godliness,  his  capacity 
to  "warm  the  heart"  and  "improve  the  conduct" 
has  resulted  in  a  biography  which  runs  to  nearly 
sixteen  columns! 

The  most  inept  and  inadequate  biography  in 
the  whole  Russian  literature  department,  how- 
ever, is  that  of  Turgueniev.  Turgueniev,  almost 
universally  conceded  to  be  the  greatest,  and  cer- 
tainly the  most  artistic,  of  the  Russian  writers,  is 
accorded  little  over  a  column,  less  space  than  is 


46        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

devoted  to  the  biography  of  Thomas  Love  Pea- 
cock, Kipling,  or  Thomas  Hardy;  and  only  a  half 
or  a  third  of  the  space  given  to  a  dozen  other  in- 
ferior English  writers.  And  in  this  brief  bio- 
graphy we  encounter  the  following  valuation: 
"Undoubtedly  Turgueniev  may  be  considered  one 
of  the  great  novelists,  worthy  to  be  ranked  with 
Thackeray,  Dickens  and  George  Eliot;  with  the 
genius  of  the  last  of  these  he  has  many  affinities." 
It  will  amuse,  rather  than  amaze,  the  students  of 
Slavonic  literature  to  learn  that  Turgueniev  was 
the  George  Eliot  of  Russia. 

But  those  thousands  of  people  who  have 
bought  the  Encyclopcsdia  Britannica^  believing  it 
to  be  an  adequate  literary  reference  work,  should 
perhaps  be  thankful  that  Turgueniev  is  mentioned 
at  all,  for  many  other  important  modern  Russians 
are  without  biographies.  For  instance,  there  is 
no  biographical  mention  of  Andreiev,  Garshin, 
Kuprin,  Tchernyshevsky,  Grigorovich,  Artzybash- 
eff,  Korolenko,  Veressayeff,  NekrasofF,  or  Tchek- 
hoff.  And  yet  the  work  of  nearly  all  these  Rus- 
sian writers  had  actually  appeared  in  English 
translation  before  the  Eleventh  Edition  of  the 
Encyclopadia  Britannica  went  to  press! 

Italian  fiction  also  suffers  from  neglect  at  the 
hands  of  the  Britannica' s  critics.  Giulio  Barrili 
receives  only  thirteen   lines;  Farina,   only  nine 


THE  NOVEL  47 

lines;  and  Giovanni  Verga,  only  twelve.  Fogaz- 
zaro  draws  twenty-six  lines;  and  in  the  biography 
we  leam  that  his  "deeply  religious  spirit"  ani- 
mates his  literary  productions,  and  that  he  con- 
tributed to  modem  Italian  literature  "wholesome 
elements  of  which  it  would  otherwise  be  nearly 
destitute."  He  also  was  "Wordsworthian"  in 
his  simplicity  and  pathos.  Amicis  and  Serao 
draw  twenty-nine  lines  and  half  a  column  re- 
spectively; but  there  are  no  biographies  of  Emilio 
de  Marchi,  the  prominent  historical  novelist;  En- 
rico Butti,  one  of  the  foremost  respresentatives  of 
the  psychological  novel  in  modem  Italy;  and 
Grazia  Deledda. 

The  neglect  of  modem  German  writers  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  is  more  glaring  than  that 
of  any  other  European  nation,  not  excluding  Rus- 
sia. So  little  information  can  one  get  from  this 
encyclopaedia  concerning  the  really  important 
German  authors  that  it  would  hardly  repay  one 
to  go  to  the  Bntannica.  Eckstein — five  of  whose 
novels  were  issued  in  English  before  1890 — is  de- 
nied a  biography.  So  is  Meinhold;  so  is  Luise 
Miihlbach;  so  is  Wachenroder ; — all  well  known 
in  England  long  before  the  Britannica  went  to 
press.  Even  Gabriele  Reuter,  whose  far-reach- 
ing success  came  as  long  ago  as  1895,  i^  with- 
out a  biography.     And — what  is  less  excusable — 


48        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Max  Kretzer,  the  first  of  Germany's  naturalistic 
novelists,  has  no  biographical  mention  in  this 
great  English  encyclopaedia  I 

But  the  omission  of  even  these  important 
names  do  not  represent  the  Britannica' s  greatest 
injustice  to  Germany's  literature;  for  one  will 
seek  in  vain  for  biographies  of  Wilhelm  von 
Polenz  and  Ompteda,  two  of  the  foremost  Ger- 
man novelists,  whose  work  marked  a  distinct  step 
in  the  development  of  their  nation's  letters. 
Furthermore,  Clara  Viebig,  Gustav  Frenssen,  and 
Thomas  Mann,  who  are  among  the  truly  great 
figures  in  modern  imaginative  literature,  are  with- 
out biographies.  These  writers  have  carried  the 
German  novel  to  extraordinary  heights.  Mann's 
Buddenbrooks  (1901)  represents  the  culmination 
of  the  naturalistic  novel  in  Germany ;  and  Viebig 
and  Frenssen  are  of  scarcely  less  importance. 
There  are  few  modern  English  novelists  as  de- 
serving as  these  three  Germans ;  and  yet  numerous 
comparatively  insignificant  English  writers  are 
given  long  critical  biographies  in  the  Brztannica 
while  Viebig,  Frenssen  and  Mann  receive  no 
biographies  whatever!  Such  unjust  discrimina- 
tion against  non-British  authors  would  hardly  be 
compatible  with  even  the  narrowest  scholarship. 

And  there  are  other  important  and  eminent 
German  novelists  who  are  far  more  deserving  of 


THE  NOVEL  49 

space  in  an  international  encyclopedia  than  many 
of  the  Englishmen  who  receive  biographies  in  the 
Britannica — for  instance,  Heinz  Tovote,  Her- 
mann Hesse,  Ricarda  Huch,  Helene  Bohlau,  and 
Eduard  von  Keyserling — not  one  of  whom  is 
given  biographical  consideration! 

When  we  come  to  the  American  literary  di- 
vision of  the  Britannica^  however,  prejudice  and 
neglect  reach  their  highest  point.  Never  have  I 
seen  a  better  example  of  the  contemptuous  atti- 
tude of  England  toward  American  literature  than 
in  the  Encyclopaedia's  treatment  of  the  novelists 
of  the  United  States.  William  Dean  Howells,  in 
a  three-quarters-of-a-column  biography,  gets  scant 
praise  and  is  criticised  with  not  a  little  condescen- 
sion. F.  Marion  Crawford,  in  an  even  shorter 
biography,  receives  only  lukewarm  and  apologetic 
praise,  Frank  Norris  is  accorded  only  twenty 
lines,  less  space  than  is  given  the  English  hack, 
G.  A.  Henty  I  McTeague  is  "a  story  of  the  San 
Francisco  slums" ;  and  The  Octopus  and  The  Pit 
are  "powerful  stories."  This  is  the  extent  of  the 
criticism.  Stephen  Crane  is  given  twelve  lines; 
Bret  Harte,  half  a  column  with  little  criticism; 
Charles  Brockden  Brown  and  Lafcadio  Heam, 
two-thirds  of  a  column  each ;  H.  C.  Bunner,  twen- 
ty-one lines;  and  Thomas  Nelson  Page  less  than 
half  a  column. 


50        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

What  there  is  in  Mark  Twain's  biography  is 
written  by  Brander  Matthews  and  is  fair  as  far  as 
it  goes.  The  one  recent  American  novelist  who 
is  given  adequate  praise  is  Henry  James;  and  this 
may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  of  James's 
adoption  of  England  as  his  home.  The  only 
other  adequate  biography  of  an  American  author 
is  that  of  Nathaniel  Hawthorne.  But  the  few 
biographies  of  other  United  States  writers  who 
are  included  in  the  Encyclopaedia  are  very  brief 
and  insufficient. 

In  the  omissions  of  American  writers,  British 
prejudice  has  overstepped  all  bounds  of  common 
justice.  In  the  following  list  of  names  only  one 
(Churchill's)  is  even  mentioned  in  the  entire  'En- 
cyclopedia: Edith  Wharton,  David  Graham 
Phillips,  Gertrude  Atherton,  Winston  Churchill, 
Owen  Wister,  Ambrose  Bierce,  Theodore  Dreiser, 
Margaret  Deland,  Jack  London,  Robert  Grant, 
Ellen  Glasgow,  Booth  Tarkington,  Alice  Brown 
and  Robert  Herrick.  And  yet  there  is  abundant 
space  in  the  Britannica,  not  only  for  critical  men- 
tion, but  for  detailed  biographies^  of  such  English 
writers  as  Hall  Caine,  Rider  Haggard,  Maurice 
Hewlett,  Stanley  Weyman,  Flora  Annie  Steel, 
Edna  Lyall^  Elizabeth  Charles,  Annie  Keary, 
Eliza  Linton,  Mrs.  Henry  Wood,  Pett  Ridge,  W. 


THE  NOVEL  51 

C.  Russell,  and  still  others  of  less  consequence  than 
many  of  the  American  authors  omitted. 

If  the  "Encyclopdidia  Britannica  was  a  work 
whose  sale  was  confined  to  England,  there  could 
be  little  complaint  of  the  neglect  of  the  writers  of 
other  nationalities.  But  unjust  pandering  to  Brit- 
ish prejudice  and  a  narrow  contempt  for  Ameri- 
can culture  scarcely  become  an  encyclopaedia 
whose  chief  profits  are  derived  from  the  United 
States.  So  inadequate  is  the  treatment  of  Amer- 
ican fiction  that  almost  any  modern  text-book  on 
our  literature  is  of  more  value;  for,  as  I  have 
shown,  all  manner  of  inferior  and  little-known 
English  authors  are  given  eulogistic  biographies, 
while  many  of  the  foremost  American  authors  re- 
ceive no  mention  whatever. 

As  a  reference  book  on  modem  fiction,  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  is  hopelessly  inadequate 
and  behind  the  times,  filled  with  long  eulogies  of 
bourgeois  English  authors,  lacking  all  sense  of 
proportion,  containing  many  glaring  omissions, 
and  compiled  and  written  in  a  spirit  of  insular 
prejudice.  And  this  is  the  kind  of  culture  that 
America  is  exhorted,  not  merely  to  accept,  but  to 
pay  a  large  price  for. 


Ill 

THE    DRAMA 

Particular  importance  attaches  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  modern  drama  is  treated  in  the  En- 
cyclopedia  Britannica^  for  to-day  there  exists  a 
deep  and  intimate  interest  in  this  branch  of  litera- 
ture— an  interest  which  is  greater  and  more  far- 
reaching  than  during  any  other  period  of  modem 
times.  Especially  is  this  true  in  the  United 
States.  During  the  past  fifteen  years  study  in 
the  history,  art  and  technique  of  the  stage  has 
spread  into  almost  every  quarter  of  the  country. 
The  printed  play  has  come  back  into  favor;  and 
there  is  scarcely  a  publisher  of  any  note  on  whose 
lists  do  not  appear  many  works  of  dramatic  litera- 
ture. Dramatic  and  stage  societies  have  been 
formed  everywhere,  and  there  is  an  increasing  de- 
mand for  productions  of  the  better-class  plays. 
Perhaps  no  other  one  branch  of  letters  holds  so 
conspicuous  a  place  in  our  culture. 

The  drama  itself  during  the  last  quarter  of  a 
century  has  taken  enormous  strides.  After  a 
period  of  stagnant  mediocrity,  a  new  vitality  has 

52 


THE  DRAMA  53 

been  fused  into  this  art.  In  Germany,  France, 
England,  and  Russia  many  significant  drama- 
tists have  sprung  into  existence.  The  literature 
of  the  stage  has  taken  a  new  lease  on  life,  and  in 
its  ranks  are  numbered  many  of  the  finest  creative 
minds  of  our  day.  Furthermore,  a  school  of  capa- 
ble and  serious  critics  has  developed  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  new  work;  and  already  there  is 
a  large  and  increasing  library  of  books  dealing 
with  the  subject  from  almost  every  angle. 

Therefore,  because  of  this  renaissance  and  the 
widespread  interest  attaching  to  it,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  in  the  Encydop^zdia  Britannica — 
that  "supreme  book  of  knowledge,"  that  "com- 
plete library"  of  information — a  full  and  com- 
prehensive treatment  of  the  modern  drama.  The 
claims  made  in  the  advertising  of  the  Britannica 
would  lead  one  immediately  to  assume  that  so 
important  and  universally  absorbing  a  subject 
would  be  set  forth  adequately.  The  drama  has 
played,  and  will  continue  to  play,  a  large  part  in 
our  modem  intellectual  life;  and,  in  an  educa- 
tional work  of  the  alleged  scope  and  completeness 
of  this  encyclopaedia,  it  should  be  accorded  care- 
ful and  liberal  consideration. 

But  in  this  department,  as  in  others  equally  im- 
portant, the  Encyclopisdia  Britannica  fails  inex- 
cusably.    I  have  carefully  inspected  its  dramatic 


54         MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

information,  and  its  inadequacy  left  me  with  a 
feeling  which  fell  little  short  of  amazement.  Not 
only  is  the  modern  drama  given  scant  considera- 
tion, but  those  comparatively  few  articles  which 
deal  with  it  are  so  inept  and  desultory  that  no  cor- 
rect idea  of  the  development  of  modern  dramatic 
literature  can  be  obtained.  As  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia's other  departments  of  modern  aesthetic  cul- 
ture, the  work  of  Great  Britain  is  accorded  an 
abnormally  large  amount  of  space,  while  the  work 
of  other  nations  is — if  mentioned  at  all — dis- 
missed with  comparatively  few  words.  The  Brit- 
ish drama,  like  the  British  novel,  is  exaggerated, 
both  through  implication  and  direct  statement, 
out  of  all  proportion  to  its  inherent  significance. 
Many  of  the  truly  great  and  important  dramatists 
of  foreign  countries  are  omitted  entirely  in  order 
to  make  way  for  minor  and  inconsequent  English- 
men; and  the  few  towering  figures  from  abroad 
who  are  given  space  draw  only  a  few  lines  of 
biographical  mention,  whereas  second-rate  British 
writers  are  accorded  long  and  ninutely  specific 
articles. 

Furthermore,  the  Encyclopaedia  reveals  the  fact 
that  in  a  great  many  instances  it  has  not  been 
brought  up  to  date.  As  a  result,  even  when  an 
alien  dramatist  has  found  his  way  into  the  ex- 
clusive British  circle  whose  activities  dominate 


THE  DRAMA  5$ 

the  assthetic  departments  of  the  Britannica,  one 
does  not  have  a  complete  record  of  his  work.  This 
failure  to  revise  adequately  old  material  and  to 
make  the  information  as  recent  as  the  physical  ex- 
igencies of  book-making  would  permit,  results  no 
doubt  in  the  fact  that  even  the  more  recent  and 
important  English  dramatists  have  suffered  the 
fate  of  omission  along  with  their  less  favored  con- 
freres from  other  countries.  Consequently,  the 
dramatic  material  is  not  only  biased  but  is  in- 
adequate from  the  British  standpoint  as  well. 

As  a  reference  book  on  the  modern  drama,  either 
for  students  or  the  casual  reader,  the  Encyclo- 
p(zdia  Britannica  is  practically  worthless.  Its  in- 
formation is  old  and  prejudiced,  besides  being 
flagrantly  incomplete.  I  could  name  a  dozen 
books  on  the  modern  drama  which  do  not  pretend 
to  possess  the  comprehensiveness  and  authenticity 
claimed  by  the  Britannica^  and  yet  are  far  more 
adequate,  both  in  extent  and  modernity  of  sub- 
ject-matter, and  of  vastly  superior  educational 
value.  The  limited  information  which  has  actu- 
ally found  its  way  into  this  encyclopedia  is  marked 
by  incompetency,  prejudice,  and  carelessness;  and 
its  large  number  of  indefensible  omissions  renders 
it  almost  useless  as  a  reference  work  on  modern 
dramatic  literature. 

In  the  general  article  on  the  Drama  we  have 


56         MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

a  key  to  the  entire  treatment  of  the  subject 
throughout  the  Encyclopaedia's  twenty-seven  vol- 
umes. The  English  drama  is  given  forty-one  col- 
umns. The  French  drama  is  given  fifteen  col- 
umns ;  the  German  drama,  nine ;  the  Scandinavian 
drama  one;  and  the  Russian  drama,  one-third  of 
a  column !  The  American  drama  is  not  even  given 
a  separate  division  but  is  included  under  the  Eng- 
lish drama,  and  occupies  less  than  one  column! 
The  Irish  drama  also  is  without  a  separate  division, 
and  receives  only  twelve  lines  of  exposition!  In 
the  division  on  the  Scandinavian  drama,  Strind- 
berg's  name  is  not  mentioned;  and  the  reader  is 
supplied  with  the  antiquated,  early- Victorian  in- 
formation that  Ibsen's  Ghosts  is  "repellent."  In 
the  brief  passage  on  the  Russian  drama  almost 
no  idea  is  given  of  its  subject;  in  fact,  no  drama- 
tist born  later  than  1808  is  mentioned!  When 
we  consider  the  wealth  of  the  modem  Russian 
drama  and  its  influence  on  the  theater  of  other 
nations,  even  of  England,  we  can  only  marvel  at 
such  utter  inadequacy  and  neglect. 

In  the  sub-headings  of  "recent"  drama  under 
Drama^  "Recent  English  Drama"  is  given  over 
twelve  columns,  while  "Recent  French  Drama"  is 
given  but  a  little  over  three.  There  is  no  sub- 
division for  recent  German  drama,  but  mention  is 
made  of  it  in  a  short  paragraph  under  "English 


THE  DRAMA  57 

Drama"  with  the  heading:  "Influences  of  For- 
eign Drama  I" 

Regard  this  distribution  of  space  for  a  moment. 
The  obvious  implication  is  that  the  more  modem 
English  drama  is  four  times  as  important  as  the 
French;  and  yet  for  years  the  entire  inspiration  of 
the  English  stage  came  from  France,  and  certain 
English  ''dramatists"  made  their  reputations  by 
adapting  French  plays.  And  what  of  the  more 
modern  German  drama*?  It  is  of  importance,  evi- 
dently, only  as  it  had  an  influence  on  the  English 
drama.  Could  self-complacent  insularity  go  fur- 
ther? Even  in  its  capacity  as  a  mere  contribu- 
tion to  British  genius,  the  recent  German  drama, 
it  seems,  is  of  little  moment;  and  Sudermann 
counts  for  naught.  In  the  entire  article  on  Dra?na 
his  name  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned  I  Such  is 
the  transcendent  and  superlative  culture  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica! 

Turning  to  the  biographies,  we  find  that  British 
dramatists,  when  mentioned  at  all,  are  treated 
with  cordial  liberality.  T.  W.  Robertson  is  given 
nearly  three-fourths  of  a  column  with  the  com- 
ment that  "his  work  is  notable  for  its  masterly 
stage-craft,  wholesome  and  generous  humor,  bright 
and  unstrained  dialogue,  and  high  dramatic  sense 
of  human  character  in  its  theatrical  aspects."  H. 
J.  Byron  is  given  over  half  a  column.     W.  S. 


58        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Gilbert  draws  no  less  than  a  column  and  three- 
fourths.  G.  R.  Sims  gets  twenty-two  lines. 
Sydney  Grundy  is  accorded  half  a  column.  James 
M.  Barrie  is  given  a  column  and  a  half,  and 
George  Bernard  Shaw  an  equal  amount  of  space. 
Pinero  is  given  two-thirds  of  a  column;  and 
Henry  Arthur  Jones  half  a  column.  Jones,  how- 
ever, might  have  had  more  space  had  the  Ency- 
clopaedia's editor  gone  to  the  simple  trouble  of  ex- 
tending that  playwright's  biography  beyond 
1904;  but  on  this  date  it  ends,  with  the  result 
that  there  appears  no  mention  of  The  Heroic 
Stubbs^  The  Hypocrites,  The  Evangelist,  Dolly 
Reforms  Himself,  or  The  Knife — all  of  which 
were  produced  before  this  supreme,  up-to-date 
and  informative  encyclopaedia  went  to  press. 

Oscar  Wilde,  a  man  who  revolutionized  the 
English  drama  and  who  was  unquestionably  one 
of  the  important  figures  in  modern  English  letters, 
is  given  a  little  over  a  column,  less  space  than 
Shaw,  Barrie,  or  Gilbert.  In  much  of  his  writing 
there  was,  we  learn,  "an  undertone  of  rather  nasty 
suggestion";  and  after  leaving  prison  "he  was 
necessarily  an  outcast  from  decent  circles." 
Also,  "it  is  still  impossible  to  take  a  purely  objec- 
tive view  of  Oscar  Wilde's  work," — that  is  to  say, 
literary  judgment  cannot  be  passed  without  re- 
course to  morality! 


THE  DRAMA  59 

Here  is  an  actual  confession  by  the  editor  him- 
self (for  he  contributed  the  article  on  Wilde)  of 
the  accusation  I  have  made  against  the  Britannica. 
A  great  artist,  according  to  this  encyclopedia's 
criterion,  is  a  respectable  artist,  one  who  preaches 
and  practises  an  inoffensive  suburbanism.  But 
when  the  day  comes — if  it  ever  does — when  the 
editor  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  along  with 
other  less  prudish  and  less  delicate  critics,  can  re- 
gard Wilde's  work  apart  from  personal  prejudice, 
perhaps  Wilde  will  be  given  the  consideration  he 
deserves — a  consideration  far  greater,  we  hope, 
than  that  accorded  Barrie  and  Gilbert. 

Greater  inadequacy  than  that  revealed  in 
Wilde's  biography  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
Synge  has  no  biography  whatever  in  the  Britan- 
nica!  Nor  has  Hankin.  Nor  Granville  Barker. 
Nor  Lady  Gregory.  Nor  Galsworthy.  The  bio- 
graphical omission  of  such  important  names  as 
these  can  hardly  be  due  to  the  editor^s  opinion 
that  they  are  not  deserving  of  mention,  for  lesser 
English  dramatic  names  of  the  preceding  genera- 
tion are  given  liberal  space.  The  fact  that  these 
writers  do  not  appear  can  be  attributed  only  to  the 
fact  that  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  has  not  been 
properly  brought  up  to  date — a  fact  substantiated 
by  an  abundance  of  evidence  throughout  the  entire 
work.     Of  what  possible  value  to  one  interested 


6o        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

in  the  modem  drama  is  a  reference  library  which 
contains  no  biographical  mention  of  such  sig- 
nificant figures  as  these? 

The  French  drama  suffers  even  more  from  in- 
completeness and  scantiness  of  material.  Becque 
draws  just  eleven  lines,  exactly  half  the  space 
given  to  the  British  playwright  whose  reputation 
largely  depends  on  that  piece  of  sentimental  clap- 
trap, Lights  (?'  London.  Hervieu  draws  half  a 
column  of  biography,  in  which  his  two  important 
dramas,  Modestie  and  Connais-Toi  (both  out  be- 
fore the  Britannic  a  went  to  press),  are  not  men- 
tioned. Curel  is  given  sixteen  lines;  Lavedan, 
fourteen  lines,  in  which  not  all  of  even  his  best 
work  is  noted;  Maurice  Donnay,  twenty  lines, 
with  no  mention  of  La  Patronne  ( 1908)  ;  Lemai- 
tre,  a  third  of  a  column;  Rostand,  half  a  column, 
less  space  than  is  accorded  the  cheap,  slap-stick 
humorist  from  Manchester,  H.  J.  Byron;  Capus, 
a  third  of  a  column;  Porto-Riche,  thirteen  lines; 
and  Brieux  twenty-six  lines.  In  Brieux's  very 
brief  biography  there  is  no  record  of  La  Frangaise 
(1807),  Simone  (1908),  or  Suzette  (1909). 
Henri  Bernstein  does  not  have  even  a  biographical 
mention. 

Maeterlinck's  biography  runs  only  to  a  column 
and  a  third,  and  the  last  work  of  his  to  be  men- 
tioned is  dated  1903,  since  which  time  the  article 


THE  DRAMA  61 

has  apparently  not  been  revised  I  Therefore,  if 
you  depend  for  information  on  this  biography  in 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  you  will  find  no 
record  of  Sceur  Beatrice,  Ariane  et  Barbe-Bleu, 
UOiseau  Bleu,  or  Maria  Magdalene. 

The  modern  Italian  drama  also  receives  very 
brief  and  inadequate  treatment.  Of  the  modern 
Italian  dramatists  only  two  of  importance  have 
biographies — Pietro  Cossa  and  Paolo  Ferrari. 
Cossa  is  given  twenty-four  lines,  and  Ferrari  only 
seven  lines!  The  two  eminent  comedy  writers, 
Gherardi  del  Testa  and  Ferdinando  Martini,  have 
no  biographies.  Nor  has  either  Giuseppe  Gia- 
cosa  or  Gerolamo  Rovetta,  the  leaders  of  the  new 
school,  any  biographical  mention.  And  in  d'An- 
nunzio's  biography  only  seventeen  lines  are  de- 
voted to  his  dramas.  What  sort  of  an  idea  of 
the  modem  Italian  drama  can  one  get  from  an 
encyclopaedia  which  contains  such  indefensible 
omissions  and  such  scant  accounts  of  prominent 
writers?  And  why  should  the  writer  who  is  as 
commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Stecchetti  as 
Samuel  Clemens  is  by  the  name  of  Mark  Twain 
be  listed  under  "Guerrini"  without  even  a  cross 
reference  under  the  only  name  by  which  the  ma- 
jority of  readers  know  him*?  Joseph  Conrad 
might  almost  as  well  be  listed  under  "Korzeniow- 
ski."     There  are  few  enough  non-British  writers 


62        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

included  in  the  Britannica  without  deliberately  or 
ignorantly  hiding  those  who  have  been  lucky 
enough  to  be  admitted. 

Crossing  over  into  Germany  and  Austria  one 
maj^  look  in  vain  for  any  indication  of  the  wealth 
of  dramatic  material  and  the  great  number  of  im- 
portant dramatic  figures  which  have  come  from 
these  two  countries.  Of  all  the  recent  German 
and  Austrian  dramatists  of  note,  only  two  are  so 
much  as  given  biographical  mention,  and  these 
two — Sudermann  and  Hauptmann — are  treated 
with  a  brevity  and  inadequacy  which,  to  my 
knowledge,  are  without  a  parallel  in  any  modern 
reference  work  on  the  subject.  Hauptmann  and 
Sudermann  receive  just  twenty-five  lines  each, 
less  space  than  is  given  to  Sydney  Grundy,  Pinero, 
Henry  Arthur  Jones,  T.  W.  Robertson,  H.  J. 
Byron;  and  less  than  a  third  of  the  space  given 
to  Shaw  and  W.  S.  Gilbert !  Even  Sims  is  given 
nearly  as  much  space ! 

In  these  comparisons  alone  is  discernible  a 
chauvinism  of  almost  incredible  narrowness. 
But  the  biographies  themselves  emphasize  this 
patriotic  prejudice  even  more  than  does  the  brev- 
ity of  space.  In  Sudermann's  biography,  which 
apparently  ends  in  1905,  no  mention  whatever  is 
made  of  such  important  works  as  Das  Blumen- 
hoot^  Rosen,  Strandkinder^  and  Das  Hoke  Lied 


THE  DRAMA  63 

{The  Song  of  Songs) ^  all  of  which  appeared  be- 
fore the  Britannic  a  was  printed. 

And  what  of  Hauptmann,  perhaps  the  greatest 
and  most  important  figure  in  dramatic  literature 
of  this  and  the  last  generation?  After  a  brief 
record  of  the  facts  in  Hauptmann's  life  we  read : 
"Of  Hauptmann's  subsequent  work  mention  may- 
be made  of" — and  then  the  names  of  a  few  of  his 
plays  are  set  down.  In  the  phrase,  "mention  may 
be  made  of,"  is  summed  up  the  critic's  narrow 
viewpoint.  And  in  that  list  it  was  thought  un- 
necessary to  mention  Schluck  und  Jau,  Michael 
Kramer,  Der  Arme  Heinrich,  Elga,  Die  Jungfern 
votn  Bischofsberg^  Kaiser  Karls  Geisel,  and  Gri- 
selda!  Since  all  of  these  appeared  in  ample  time 
to  be  included,  it  would,  I  believe,  have  occurred 
to  an  unprejudiced  critic  that  mention  might  have 
been  made  of  them.  In  fact,  all  the  circumstan- 
tial evidence  points  to  the  supposition  that  had 
Hauptmann  been  an  Englishman,  not  only  would 
they  have  been  mentioned,  but  they  would  have 
been  praised  as  well.  As  it  is,  there  is  no  criticism 
of  Hauptmann's  work  and  no  indication  of  his 
greatness,  despite  the  fact  that  he  is  almost  uni- 
versally conceded  to  be  a  more  important  figure 
than  any  of  the  modern  English  playwrights  who 
are  given  greater  space  and  favorably  criticised. 

With  such  insufficient  and  glaringly  prejudiced 


64        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

treatment  of  giants  like  Sudermann  and  Haupt- 
mann,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  not  one  other 
figure  in  German  and  Austrian  recent  dramatic 
literature  should  have  a  biography.  For  in- 
stance, there  is  no  biography  of  Schnitzler,  Arno 
Holz,  Max  Halbe,  Ludwig  Fulda,  O.  E.  Hartle- 
ben,  Max  Dreyer,  Ernst  Hardt,  Hirschfeld,  Ernst 
Rosmer,  Karl  Schdnherr,  Hermann  Bahr,  Thoma, 
Beer-Hoffmann,  Johannes  Schlaf,  or  Wedekindl 
Although  every  one  of  these  names  should  be  in- 
cluded in  some  informative  manner  in  an  encyclo- 
paedia as  large  as  the  Brilannica,  and  one  which 
makes  so  lavish  a  claim  for  its  educational  com- 
pleteness, the  omission  of  several  of  them  may  be 
excused  on  the  grounds  that,  in  the  haste  of  the 
Encyclopaedia's  editors  to  commercialize  their  cul- 
tural wares,  they  did  not  have  sufficient  time  to 
take  cognizance  of  the  more  recent  of  these  dra- 
matists. Since  the  editors  have  overlooked  men 
like  Galsworthy  from  their  own  country,  we  can 
at  least  acquit  them  of  the  charge  of  snobbish 
patriotism  in  several  of  the  present  instances  of 
wanton  oversight. 

In  the  cases  of  Schnitzler,  Hartleben  and 
Wedekind,  however,  no  excuse  can  be  offered. 
The  work  of  these  men,  though  recent,  had  gained 
for  itself  so  important  a  place  in  the  modern 
world  before  the  Britannica  went  to  press,  that  to 


THE  DRAMA  65 

ignore  them  biographically  was  an  act  of  either 
wanton  carelessness  or  extreme  ignorance.  The 
former  would  appear  to  furnish  the  explanation, 
for  under  Drama  there  is  evidence  that  the  editors 
knew  of  Schnitzler's  and  Wedekind's  existence. 
But,  since  the  Vberbrettl  movement  is  given  only- 
seven  lines,  it  would,  under  the  circumstances, 
hardly  be  worth  one's  while  to  consult  the  Ency- 
clopczdia  Britannica  for  information  on  the  mod- 
em drama  in  Germany  and  Austria. 

Even  so,  one  would  learn  more  of  the  drama  in 
those  countries  than  one  could  possibly  learn  of 
the  drama  of  the  United  States.  To  be  sure,  no 
great  significance  attaches  to  our  stage  literature, 
but  since  this  encyclopaedia  is  being  foisted  upon 
us  and  we  are  asked  to  buy  it  in  preference  to  all 
others,  it  would  have  been  well  within  the  prov- 
ince of  its  editors  to  give  the  hundred  of  thou- 
sands of  American  readers  a  little  enlightenment 
concerning  their  own  drama. 

The  English,  of  course,  have  no  interest  in  our 
institutions — save  only  our  banks — and  consist- 
ently refuse  to  attribute  either  competency  or  im- 
portance to  our  writers.  They  would  prefer  that 
we  accept  their  provincial  and  mediocre  culture 
and  ignore  entirely  our  own  aesthetic  struggles 
toward  an  individual  expression.  But  all  Amer- 
icans do  not  find  intellectual  contentment  in  this 


66        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

paternal  and  protecting  British  attitude;  and 
those  who  are  interested  in  our  native  drama  and 
who  have  paid  money  for  the  Britannica  on  the 
strength  of  its  exorbitant  and  unsustainable 
claims,  have  just  cause  for  complaint  in  the  scanty 
and  contemptuous  way  in  which  American  letters 
are  treated. 

As  I  have  already  noted,  the  American  drama  is 
embodied  in  the  article  on  the  English  Drama, 
and  is  given  less  space  than  a  column.  Under 
American  Literature  there  is  nothing  concerning 
the  American  stage  and  its  writers;  nor  is  there 
a  single  biography  in  the  entire  Encyclopaedia  of 
an  American  dramatist!  James  A.  Heme  re- 
ceives eight  lines — a  note  so  meagre  that  for  pur- 
poses of  reference  it  might  almost  as  well  have 
been  omitted  entirely.  And  Augustin  Daly,  the 
most  conspicuous  figure  in  our  theatrical  history, 
is  dismissed  with  twenty  lines,  about  half  the 
space  given  H.  J.  Byron!  If  you  desire  any  in- 
formation concerning  the  development  of  the 
American  theater,  or  wish  to  know  any  details 
about  David  Belasco,  Bronson  Howard,  Charles 
Hoyt,  Steele  MacKaye,  Augustus  Thomas,  Clyde 
Fitch,  or  Charles  Klein,  you  will  have  to  go  to  a 
source  other  than  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 

By  way  of  explaining  this  neglect  of  all  Amer- 
ican culture  I  will  quote  from  a  recent  advertise- 


THE  DRAMA  67 

ment  of  the  Britannica.  "We  Americans,"  it 
says,  in  a  most  intimate  and  condescending  man- 
ner, "have  had  a  deep  sense  of  self-sufficiency. 
We  haven't  had  time  or  inclination  to  know  how 
the  rest  of  the  world  lived.  But  now  we  must 
know."  And  let  it  be  said  for  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  that  it  has  done  all  in  its  power  to  dis- 
courage us  in  this  self-sufficiency. 


IV 

POETRY 

In  the  field  of  poetry  the  Encyclopedia  Bntan- 
nica  comes  nearer  being  a  competent  reference 
library  than  in  the  field  of  painting,  fiction,  or 
drama.  This  fact,  however,  is  not  due  to  a  spirit 
of  fairness  on  the  part  of  the  Encyclopsedia*s  edi- 
tors so  much  as  to  the  actual  superiority  of  Eng- 
lish poetry.  In  this  field  England  has  led  the 
world.  It  is  the  one  branch  of  culture  in  which 
modern  England  stands  highest.  France  sur- 
passes her  in  painting  and  in  fiction,  and  Germany 
in  music  and  the  drama.  But  Great  Britain  is 
without  a  rival  in  poetry.  Therefore,  despite  the 
fact  that  the  Encyclopaedia  is  just  as  biased  in 
dealing  with  this  subject  as  it  is  in  dealing  with 
other  cultural  subjects,  England's  pre-eminence 
tends  to  reduce  in  this  instance  that  insular  prej- 
udice which  distorts  the  Britannica's  treatment  of 
arts  and  letters. 

But  even   granting  this  superiority,   the  En- 
cyclopaedia is  neglectful  of  the  poets  of  other 

nations;  and  while  it  comes  nearer  the  truth  in 

68 


POETRY  69 

setting  forth  the  glories  of  English  prosody,  it 
fails  here  as  elsewhere  in  being  an  international 
reference  book  of  any  marked  value.  There  is 
considerable  and  unnecessary  exaggeration  of  the 
merits  of  British  poets,  even  of  second-  and  third- 
rate  British  poets.  Evangelical  criticism  pre- 
dominates, and  respectability  is  the  measure  of 
merit.  Furthermore,  the  true  value  of  poetry  in 
France,  Germany,  Italy,  Sweden  and  the  United 
States  is  minimized,  and  many  writers  of  these 
countries  who  unquestionably  should  have  a  place 
in  an  encyclopaedia  as  large  as  the  Brilannica,  are 
omitted.  Especially  is  this  true  in  the  case  of  the 
United  States,  which  stands  second  only  to  Great 
Britain  in  the  quantity  and  quality  of  its  modern 
poetry. 

Let  us  first  review  briefly  the  complete  and 
eulogistic  manner  in  which  English  poets  are  dealt 
with.  Then  let  us  compare,  while  making  all 
allowances  for  alien  inferiority,  this  treatment  of 
British  poetry  with  the  Encyclopaedia's  treatment 
of  the  poetry  of  other  nations.  To  begin  with, 
I  find  but  very  few  British  poets  of  even  minor 
importance  who  are  not  given  a  biography  more 
than  equal  to  their  deserts.  Coventry  Patmore 
receives  a  biography  of  a  column  and  a  half. 
Sydney  Dobell's  runs  to  nearly  a  column.  Wil- 
fred Scawen  Blunt  is  accorded  half  a  column; 


70        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

John  Davidson,  over  a  column  of  high  praise; 
Henley,  more  than  an  entire  page;  Stephen 
Phillips,  three-fourths  of  a  column;  Henry  Clar- 
ence Kendall,  eighteen  lines;  Roden  Noel,  twenty- 
eight  lines;  Alexander  Smith,  twenty-five  lines; 
Lawrence  Binyon,  nineteen  lines ;  Laurence  Hous- 
man,  twenty- three  lines;  Ebenezer  Jones,  twenty- 
four  lines;  Richard  Le  Gallienne,  twenty  lines; 
Henry  Newbolt,  fifteen  lines;  and  Arthur  Wil- 
liam Edgar  O'Shaughnessy,  twenty-nine  lines. 
These  names,  together  with  the  amount  of  space 
devoted  to  them,  will  give  an  indication  of  the 
thoroughness  and  liberality  accorded  British 
poets. 

But  these  by  no  means  complete  the  list. 
Robert  Bridges  receives  half  a  column,  in  which 
we  learn  that  "his  work  has  had  great  influence 
in  a  select  circle,  by  its  restraint,  purity,  precision, 
and  delicacy  yet  strength  of  expression."  And 
in  his  higher  flights  "he  is  always  noble  and  some- 
times sublime.  .  .  .  Spirituality  informs  his  in- 
spiration." Here  we  have  an  excellent  example 
of  the  Encyclopaedia's  combination  of  the  uplift 
and  hyperbole.  More  of  the  same  moral  encom- 
ium is  to  be  found  in  the  biography  of  Christina 
Rossetti,  which  is  a  column  in  length.  Her 
"sanctity"  and  "religious  faith"  are  highly 
praised;  and  the  article  ends  with  the  words: 


POETRY  71 

"All  that  we  really  need  to  know  about  her,  save 
that  she  was  a  great  saint,  is  that  she  was  a  great 
poet."  Ah,  yes  I  Saintliness — that  cardinal  re- 
quisite in  British  aesthetics. 

An  example  of  how  the  Britannica^s  provincial 
Puritanism  of  judgment  works  against  a  poet  is 
to  be  found  in  the  nearly-two-page  biography  of 
Swinburne,  wherein  we  read  that  "it  is  impossible 
to  acquit  his  poetry  of  the  charge  of  animalism 
which  wars  against  the  higher  issues  of  the  spirit." 
No,  Swinburne  was  not  a  pious  uplifter;  he  did 
not  use  his  art  as  a  medium  for  evangelical  ex- 
hortation. Consequently  his  work  does  not  com- 
ply with  the  Britannica's  parochial  standard. 
And  although  Swinburne  was  contemporary  with 
Francis  Thompson,  it  is  said  in  the  latter's  two- 
thirds-of-a-column  biography  that  "for  glory  of 
inspiration  and  natural  magnificence  of  utterance 
he  is  unique  among  the  poets  of  his  time." 
Watts-Dunton  also,  in  his  three-fourths-of-a- 
column  biography,  is  praised  lavishly  and  set 
down  as  a  "unique  figure  in  the  world  of  letters." 

William  Watson  receives  over  a  column  of 
biography,  and  is  eulogized  for  his  classic  tradi- 
tions in  an  age  of  prosodic  lawlessness.  The 
sentimental  and  inoffensive  Austin  Dobson  ap- 
parently is  a  high  favorite  with  the  editors  of  the 
Encyclopsedia,  for  he  is  given  a  column  and  three- 


72        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

fourths — more  space  than  is  given  John  David- 
son, Francis  Thompson,  William  Watson,  Watts- 
Dunton,  or  Oscar  Wilde — an  allowance  out  of  all 
proportion  to  his  importance. 

In  closing  this  brief  record  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica' s  prodigal  generosity  to  British  poets, 
it  might  be  well  to  mention  that  Thomas  Chatter- 
ton  receives  a  biography  of  five  and  a  half 
columns — a  space  considerably  longer  than  that 
given  to  Heine.  Since  Thomas  Chatterton  died 
at  the  age  of  eighteen  and  Heinrich  Heine  did  not 
die  until  he  was  fifty-nine,  I  leave  it  to  statistic- 
ians to  figure  out  how  much  more  space  than 
Heine  Chatterton  would  have  received  had  he 
lived  to  the  age  of  the  German  poet. 

On  turning  to  the  French  poets  and  bearing  in 
mind  the  long  biographies  accorded  British  poets, 
one  cannot  help  feeling  amazed  at  the  scant  treat- 
ment which  the  former  receive.  Baudelaire,  for 
instance,  is  given  less  space  than  Christina  Ros- 
setti,  William  Watson,  Henley,  Coventry  Pat- 
more,  John  Davidson,  or  Austin  Dobson.  Ca- 
tulle  Mendes  receives  considerably  less  space  than 
Stephen  Phillips.  Verlaine  is  given  equal  space 
with  Watts-Dunton,  and  less  than  half  the  space 
given  to  Austin  Dobson !  Stephane  Mallarme  re- 
ceives only  half  the  space  given  to  John  David- 
son,   Christina    Rossetti,    or    William    Watson. 


POETRY  73 

Jean  Moreas  receives  only  half  the  space  given  to 
Sydney  Dobell  or  Christina  Rossetti.  Viele- 
Griffin  draws  a  shorter  biography  than  Kendall, 
the  Australian  poet;  and  Regnier  and  Bouchor 
arc  dismissed  in  fewer  words  than  is  the  Scotch 
poet,  Alexander  Smith.  Furthermore,  these  biog- 
raphies are  rarely  critical,  being  in  the  majority 
of  instances  a  cursory  record  of  incomplete  data. 
Here  attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  that 
only  in  the  cases  of  the  very  inconsequent  British 
poets  is  criticism  omitted :  if  the  poet  is  even  fairly 
well  known  there  is  a  discussion  of  his  work  and 
an  indication  of  the  place  he  is  supposed  to  hold 
in  his  particular  field.  But  with  foreign  writers — 
even  the  very  prominent  ones — little  or  nothing 
concerning  them  is  vouchsafed  save  historical 
facts,  and  these,  as  a  general  rule,  fall  far  short 
of  completeness.  The  impression  given  is  that 
obscure  Englishmen  are  more  important  than  emi- 
nent Frenchmen,  Germans,  or  Americans.  Evi- 
dently the  editors  are  of  the  opinion  that  if  one 
is  cognizant  of  British  culture  one  can  easily  dis- 
pense with  all  other  culture  as  inferior  and  un- 
necessary. Otherwise  how,  except  on  the  ground 
of  deliberate  falsification,  can  one  explain  the  lib- 
eral treatment  accorded  English  poets  as  com- 
pared with  the  meagre  treatment  given  French 
poets? 


74        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Since  the  important  French  poets  mentioned  re- 
ceive such  niggardly  and  grudging  treatment,  it  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at  that  many  other  lesser  poets 
— yet  poets  who  are  of  sufficient  importance  to  be 
included  in  an  encyclopsedia — should  receive  no 
biographical  mention.  If  you  wish  information 
concerning  Adolphe  Rette,  Rene  de  Ghil,  Stuart 
Merrill,  Emmanuel  Signoret,  Jehan  Rictus,  Al- 
bert Samain,  Paul  Fort,  who  is  the  leading  bal- 
ladist  of  young  France,  Herold,  Quillard,  or 
Francis  Jammes,  you  will  have  to  go  to  a  source 
even  more  "supreme"  than  the  Encyclop(zdia 
Britannica.  These  poets  were  famous  in  1900,  and 
even  in  America  there  had  appeared  at  that  time 
critical  considerations  of  their  work.  Again,  one 
ought  to  find,  in  so  "complete"  a  "library"  as  the 
Britannica,  information  concerning  the  principal 
poets  of  the  Belgian  Renaissance.  But  of  the 
eight  leading  modern  poets  of  Belgium  only  three 
have  biographies — Lemonnier,  Maeterlinck,  and 
Verhaeren.  There  are  no  biographies  of  Eek- 
houd,  Rodenbach,  Elskamp,  Severin  and  Cam- 
maerts. 

Turning  to  Italy  we  find  even  grosser  injustice 
and  an  even  more  woeful  inadequacy  in  the  treat- 
ment accorded  her  modern  poets.  To  be  sure, 
there  are  biographies  of  Carducci,  Ferrari,  Mar- 
radi,  Mazzoni,  and  Arturo  Graf.     But  Alfredo 


POETRY  7? 

Baccelli,  Domenico  Gnoli,  Giovanni  Pascoli, 
Mario  Rapisardi,  Chiarini,  Panzacchi  and  Annie 
Vivanti  are  omitted.  There  should  be  biographies 
of  these  writers  in  an  international  encyclopffidia 
one-fourth  the  size  of  the  Britannica.  Baccelli 
and  Rapisardi  are  perhaps  the  two  most  important 
epic  poets  of  modern  Italy.  Gnoli  is  one  of  the 
leaders  of  the  classical  school.  Chiarini  is  not 
only  a  leading  poet  but  is  one  of  the  first  critics 
of  Italy  as  well.  Panzacchi,  the  romantic,  is  sec- 
ond only  to  the  very  greatest  Italian  poets  of  mod- 
ern times,  and  as  far  back  as  1898  British  critics 
were  praising  him  and  regretting  that  he  was  not 
better  known  in  England.  Annie  Vivanti,  born 
in  London,  is  a  poet  known  and  esteemed  all  over 
Italy.  (It  may  be  noted  here  that  Vivanti  wrote 
a  vehement  denunciation  and  repudiation  of  Eng- 
land in  Ave  Albion.) 

But  these  names  represent  only  part  of  the  in- 
justice and  neglect  accorded  modem  Italian  poetry 
by  the  Britannica.  There  is  not  even  so  much  as 
a  mention  in  the  entire  twenty-nine  volumes  of  the 
names  of  Alinda  Bonacchi,  the  most  widely  known 
woman  poet  in  Italy;  Capuano,  who,  besides  be- 
ing a  notable  poet,  is  also  a  novelist,  dramatist 
and  critic  of  distinction;  Funcini  (Tanfucio 
Neri),  a  household  word  in  Tuscany  and  one  held 
in  high  esteem  all  over  Italy;  "Countess  Lara" 


76        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

(Eveline  Cattermole),  whose  Vers?  gave  her  a 
foremost  place  among  the  poets  of  her  day ;  Pitteri, 
who  was  famous  as  long  ago  as  1890;  and  Nenci- 
oni,  not  only  a  fine  poet  but  one  of  Italy's  great 
critics.  Nencioni  has  earned  the  reputation  of 
being  the  Sainte-Beuve  of  Italy,  and  it  was  he 
who  introduced  Browning,  Tennyson  and  Swin- 
burne to  his  countrymen.  Then  there  are  such 
poets  as  Fontana,  Bicci  and  Arnaboldi,  who  should 
at  least  be  mentioned  in  connection  with  modem 
Italian  literature,  but  whose  names  do  not  appear 
in  "this  complete  library  of  information." 

But  France,  Belgium,  and  Italy,  nevertheless, 
have  great  cause  for  feeling  honored  when  com- 
parison is  made  between  the  way  the  Encyclo' 
p<zdia  Britannica  deals  with  their  modern  poetry 
and  the  way  it  deals  with  modern  German  and 
Austrian  poetry.  Of  all  the  important  recent 
lyricists  of  Germany  and  Austria  only  one  is  given 
a  biography,  and  that  biography  is  so  brief  and 
inadequate  as  to  be  practically  worthless  for  pur- 
poses of  enlightenment.  The  one  favored  poet  is 
Detlev  von  Liliencron.  Liliencron  is  perhaps  the 
most  commanding  lyrical  figure  in  all  recent  Ger- 
man literature,  and  he  receives  just  twenty-seven 
lines,  or  about  one-fifth  of  the  space  given  to  Aus- 
tin Dobson!  But  there  are  no  biographies  of 
Richard  Dehmel,  Carl  Busse,  Stefan  George,  J.  H. 


POETRY  77 

Mackay,  Rainer  Maria  Rilke,  Gustav  Falke, 
Ernst  von  Wolzogen,  Kark  Henckell,  Dormann, 
Otto  Julius  Bierbaum,  and  Hugo  von  Hofmann- 
sthal. 

There  can  be  no  excuse  for  many  of  these  omis- 
sions. Several  of  these  names  are  of  international 
eminence.  Their  works  have  not  been  confined 
to  Germany,  but  have  appeared  in  English  trans- 
lation. They  stand  in  the  foremost  rank  of  mod- 
ern literature,  and  both  in  England  and  America 
there  are  critical  books  which  accord  them  exten- 
sive consideration.  Without  a  knowledge  of 
them  no  one — not  even  a  Britisher — can  lay  claim 
to  an  understanding  of  modern  letters.  Yet  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  denies  them  space  and 
still  poses  as  an  adequate  reference  work. 

One  may  hope  to  find  some  adequate  treatment 
of  the  German  lyric  to  recent  years  with  its  "re- 
markable variety  of  new  tones  and  pregnant 
ideas,"  in  the  article  on  German  Literature.  But 
that  hope  will  straightway  be  blasted  when  one 
turns  to  the  article  in  question.  The  entire  new 
renaissance  in  German  poetry  is  dismissed  in  a 
brief  paragraph  of  thirty-one  lines  I  It  would 
have  been  better  to  omit  it  altogether,  for  such  a 
cursory  and  inadequate  survey  of  a  significant  sub- 
ject can  result  only  in  disseminating  a  most  un- 
just and  distorted   impression.     And  the  bibli- 


78        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ography  at  the  end  of  this  article  on  modern  Ger- 
man literature  reveals  nothing  so  much  as  the  lack 
of  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the  critic  who  com- 
piled it.  Not  only  is  the  Britannica  deficient  in 
its  information,  but  it  does  not  reveal  the  best 
sources  from  which  this  omitted  information  might 
be  gained. 

An  even  more  absurdly  inadequate  treatment  is 
accorded  the  poets  of  modern  Sweden.  Despite 
the  fact  that  Swedish  literature  is  little  known  to 
Americans,  the  poetry  of  that  country  ranks  very 
high — higher  (according  to  some  eminent  critics) 
than  the  poetry  of  France  or  Germany.  But  the 
Britannica  makes  no  effort  to  disturb  our  ignor- 
ance ;  and  so  the  great  lyric  poetry  of  Sweden  since 
1870  is  barely  touched  upon.  However,  Mr.  Ed- 
mund Gosse,  a  copious  contributor  to  the  En- 
cyclopaedia, has  let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag.  In  one 
of  his  books  he  has  pronounced  Eroding,  Levertin 
and  Heidenstam  "three  very  great  lyrical  artists," 
and  has  called  Snoilsky  a  poet  of  "unquestioned 
force  and  fire."  Turning  to  the  Britannica  we 
find  that  Snoilsky  is  dismissed  with  half  the  space 
given  Sydney  Dobell  and  a  third  of  the  space  given 
Patmore.  Levertin  receives  only  a  third  of  a  col- 
umn; and  Eroding  is  denied  any  biography  what- 
ever. He  is  thrown  in  with  a  batch  of  minor 
writers    under    Sweden.     Heidenstam,    the    new 


POETRY  79 

Nobel  prize-winner,  a  poet  who,  according  to 
Charles  Wharton  Stork,  "stands  head  and  shoul- 
ders above  any  now  writing  in  England,"  receives 
only  eight  lines  in  the  general  notice  I  And  Karl- 
feldt,  another  important  lyrist,  who  is  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Swedish  Academy,  is  considered  un- 
worthy of  even  a  word  in  the  "supreme"  En- 
cyclop(zdia  Britannica. 

It  would  seem  that  unfair  and  scant  treatment 
of  a  country's  poetry  could  go  no  further.  But  if 
you  will  seek  for  information  concerning  American 
poetry  you  will  find  a  deficiency  which  is  even 
greater  than  that  which  marks  the  treatment  of 
modern  Swedish  poetry. 

Here  again  it  might  be  in  place  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  hyperbolical  claims  on  which  the  En- 
cydopczdia  Britannica  has  been  sold  in  America. 
In  the  flamboyant  and  unsubstantiable  advertis- 
ing of  this  reference  work  you  will  no  doubt  re- 
call the  claim:  "It  will  tell  you  more  about 
everything  than  you  can  get  from  any  other 
source."  And  perhaps  you  will  also  remember 
the  statement:  "The  Britannica  is  a  complete 
library  of  knowledge  on  every  subject  appealing 
to  intelligent  persons."  It  may  be,  of  course,  that 
the  editors  believe  that  the  subject  of  American 
literature  does  not,  or  at  least  should  not,  appeal 
to  any  but  ignorant  persons,  and  that,  in  fact,  only 


8o        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

middle-class  English  culture  can  possibly  interest 
the  intelligent.  But  unless  such  a  belief  can  be 
proved  to  be  correct,  the  American  buyers  of  this 
Encyclopaedia  have  a  grave  and  legitimate  com- 
plaint against  the  editors  for  the  manner  in  which 
the  books  were  foisted  upon  them.  The  Encyclo- 
padia  Britannica^  as  I  have  pointed  out,  is  not  a 
complete  library  of  knowledge  on  the  subject  of 
literature;  and  in  the  following  pages  I  shall  show 
that  its  gross  inadequacy  extends  to  many  other 
very  important  fields  of  endeavor.  Moreover,  its 
incompleteness  is  most  glaringly  obvious  in  the 
field  of  American  aesthetic  effort — a  field  which, 
under  the  circumstances,  should  be  the  last  to  be 
neglected. 

On  the  subject  of  American  poetry  it  is  deficient 
almost  to  the  extreme  of  worthlessness.  In  the 
article,  American  Literature^  written  by  George 
E.  Woodberry,  we  discover  that  truly  British  spirit 
and  viewpoint  which  regards  nothing  as  worth 
while  unless  it  is  old  or  eminently  respectable  and 
accepted.  The  result  is  that,  in  the  paragraph  on 
our  poetry,  such  men  as  Aldrich,  Stedman,  Rich- 
ard Watson  Gilder,  Julia  Ward  Howe,  H.  H. 
Brownell  and  Henry  Van  Dyke  are  mentioned; 
but  very  few  others.  As  a  supreme  surrender  to 
modernity  the  names  of  Walt  Whitman,  Eugene 
Field,  James  Whitcomb  Riley  and  Joaquin  Miller 


POETRY  81 

are  included.  The  great  wealth  of  American 
poetry,  which  is  second  only  to  that  of  England, 
is  not  even  suggested. 

Turning  to  the  biography  of  Edgar  Allan  Poe, 
we  find  that  this  writer  receives  only  a  column 
and  a  half,  less  space  than  is  given  Austin  Dobson, 
Coventry  Patmore,  or  W.  E.  Henley  I  And  the 
biography  itself  is  so  inept  that  it  is  an  affront  to 
American  taste  and  an  insult  to  American  intel- 
ligence. One  is  immediately  interested  in  learn- 
ing what  critic  the  Encyclopaedia's  editors  chose 
to  represent  this  American  who  has  long  since  be- 
come a  world  figure  in  literature.  Turning  to  the 
index  we  discover  that  one  David  Hannay  is  the 
authority — a  gentleman  who  was  formerly  the 
British  Vice-Consul  at  Barcelona.  Mr.  Hannay 
(apparently  he  holds  no  academic  degree  of  any 
kind)  lays  claim  to  fame  chiefly,  it  seems,  as  the 
author  of  Short  History  of  the  Royal  Navy;  but 
in  just  what  way  his  research  in  naval  matters 
qualifies  him  to  write  on  Poe  is  not  indicated. 
This  is  not,  however,  the  only  intimation  we  had 
that  in  the  minds  of  the  Encyclopedia's  editors 
there  exists  some  esoteric  and  recondite  relation- 
ship between  art  and  British  sea-power.  In  the 
Britannica's  criticism  of  J.  M.  W.  Turner's  paint- 
ings, that  artist's  work  is  said  to  be  "like  the  Brit- 
ish fleet  among  the  navies  of  the  world."     In  the 


82        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

present  instance,  however,  we  can  only  trust  that 
the  other  articles  in  this  encyclopaedia,  by  Mr. 
Hannay — to-wit:  Admiral  Venn  and  Pirate  and 
Piracy — are  more  competent  than  his  critique  on 
Poe. 

Walt  Whitman  gets  scarcely  better  treatment. 
His  biography  is  no  longer  than  Poe's  and  con- 
tains little  criticism  and  no  suggestion  of  his  true 
place  in  American  letters.  This  is  all  the  more 
astonishing  when  we  recall  the  high  tribute  paid 
Whitman  by  eminent  English  critics.  Surely  the 
Brilannica's  editors  are  not  ignorant  of  Whitman's 
place  in  modern  letters  or  of  the  generous  man- 
ner in  which  he  had  been  received  abroad.  What- 
ever one's  opinion  of  him,  he  was  a  towering  figure 
in  our  literature — a  pioneer  who  had  more  in- 
fluence on  our  later  writers  than  any  other  Ameri- 
can. And  yet  his  biography  in  this  great  British 
cultural  work  is  shorter  than  that  of  Mrs.  Hum- 
phry Ward  I 

With  such  obviously  inadequate  and  contemptu- 
ous treatment  as  that  accorded  Poe  and  Whitman, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  all  other  American  poets 
should  be  treated  peremptorily  or  neglected  en- 
tirely. There  are  very  short  biographical  notes 
on  Stedman,  Louise  Chandler  Moulton,  Sill,  Gil- 
der, Eugene  Field,  Sidney  Lanier  and  Riley — but 
they  are  scant  records  of  facts  and  most  insufR- 


POETRY  83 

cient  when  compared  to  the  biographies  of  second- 
rate  poets  of  England. 

But  let  us  be  grateful  that  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  was  generous  enough  to  record  them  at 
all;  for  one  can  look  in  vain  through  its  entire 
twenty-nine  volumes,  no  matter  under  what  head- 
ing, for  even  a  mention  of  Emily  Dickinson,  John 
Bannister  Tabb,  Florence  Earle  Coates,  Edwin 
Markham,  Lizette  Woodworth  Reese,  Clinton 
Scollard,  Louise  Imogen  Guiney,  Richard  Hovey, 
Madison  Cawein,  Edwin  Arlington  Robinson, 
George  Sylvester  Viereck,  Ridgeley  Torrence, 
Arthur  Upson,  Santayana,  and  many  others  who 
hold  an  important  place  in  our  literature.  And 
the  names  of  William  Vaughn  Moody,  Percy 
MacKaye  and  Bliss  Carman  are  merely  mentioned 
casually,  the  first  two  under  Drama  and  the  last 
under  Canadian  Literature. 

The  palpable  injustice  in  the  complete  omission 
of  many  of  the  above  American  names  is  rendered 
all  the  more  glaring  by  the  fact  that  the  Encyclo- 
pczdia  Britannica  pays  high  tribute  to  such  minor 
British  poets  and  versifiers  as  W.  H.  Davies, 
Sturge  Moore,  Locker  Lampson,  C.  M.  Doughty, 
Walter  de  la  Mare,  Alfred  Noyes,  Herbert 
Trench,  Ernest  Dowson,  Mrs.  Meynell,  A.  E. 
Housman  and  Owen  Seaman. 

This  is  the  culture  disseminated  by  the  Encyclo- 


84        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

padia  Britannica^  which  "is  a  complete  library  of 
knowledge  on  every  subject  appealing  to  intel- 
ligent persons,"  and  which  "will  tell  you  more 
about  everything  than  you  can  get  from  any  other 
source!"  This  is  the  "supreme  book  of  knowl- 
edge" which  Americans  are  asked  to  buy  in  prefer- 
ence to  all  others.  What  pettier  insult  could  one 
nation  offer  to  another*? 


BRITISH    PAINTING 

If  one  hopes  to  find  in  the  Eleventh  Edition  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  an  unprejudiced  critical 
and  biographical  survey  of  the  world's  painters, 
he  will  be  sorely  disappointed.  Not  only  is  the 
Encyclopaedia  not  comprehensive  and  up-to-date, 
but  the  manner  in  which  British  art  and  artists 
are  constantly  forced  to  the  front  rank  is  so  grossly 
biased  that  a  false  impression  of  aesthetic  history 
and  art  values  is  almost  an  inevitable  result,  un- 
less one  is  already  equipped  with  a  wide  under- 
standing of  the  subject.  If  one  were  to  form  an 
opinion  of  art  on  the  Britannica^s  articles,  the 
opinion  would  be  that  English  painting  leads  the 
modem  world  in  both  amount  and  quality.  The 
Encyclopaedia  raises  English  academicians  to  the 
ranks  of  exalted  greatness,  and  at  the  same  time 
tends  to  tear  down  the  pedestals  whereon  rest  the 
truly  towering  geniuses  of  alien  nationality. 

So  consistently  does  British  bourgeois  prejudice 
and  complacency  characterize  the  material  on 
painting  contained  in  this  Encyclopaedia,  that  any 

8s 


86        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

attempt  to  get  from  it  an  aesthetic  point  of  view 
which  would  be  judicious  and  universal,  would 
fail  utterly.  Certain  French,  German,  and  Amer- 
ican artists  of  admitted  importance  are  considered 
unworthy  of  space,  or,  if  indeed  deserving  of  men- 
tion, are  unworthy  of  the  amount  of  space,  or  the 
praise,  which  is  conferred  on  a  large  number  of 
lesser  English  painters.  Both  by  implication  and 
direct  statement  the  editors  have  belittled  the 
aesthetic  endeavor  of  foreign  nations,  and  have  ex- 
aggerated, to  an  almost  unbelievable  degree,  the 
art  of  their  own  country.  The  manner  in  which 
the  subject  of  painting  is  dealt  with  reveals  the 
full-blown  flower  of  British  insularity,  and  apo- 
theosizes the  narrow,  aggressive  culture  of  British 
middle-class  respectability.  In  the  world's  art 
from  1700  on,  comparatively  little  merit  is  recog- 
nized beyond  the  English  Channel. 

The  number  of  English  painters  whose  biog- 
raphies appear  in  the  Britannica  would,  I  be- 
lieve, astonish  even  certain  English  art  critics; 
and  the  large  amount  of  space  devoted  to  them — 
even  to  inconsequent  and  obscure  academicians — 
when  compared  with  the  brief  notices  given  to 
greater  painters  of  other  nations,  leaves  the  un- 
British  searcher  with  a  feeling  of  bewilderment. 
But  not  only  with  the  large  number  of  English 
painters  mentioned  or  even  with  the  obviousl}'-  dis- 


BRITISH  PAINTING  87 

proportionate  amount  of  space  devoted  to  them 
does  the  Encyclopedia's  chauvinistic  campaign 
for  England's  sesthetic  supremacy  cease.  The 
criticisms  which  accompany  these  biographies  are 
as  a  rule  generously  favorable ;  and,  in  many  cases, 
the  praise  reaches  a  degree  of  extravagance  which 
borders  on  the  absurd. 

Did  this  optimism  of  outlook,  this  hot  desire 
to  ferret  out  greatness  where  only  mediocrity 
exists,  this  ambition  to  drag  the  obscure  and  inept 
into  the  glare  of  prominence,  extend  to  all  paint- 
ers, regardless  of  nationality,  one  might  forgive 
the  superlative  eulogies  heaped  upon  British  art, 
and  attribute  them  to  that  mellow  spirit  of  senti- 
mental tolerance  which  sees  good  in  everything. 
But,  alas  I  such  impartiality  does  not  exist.  It 
would  seem  that  the  moment  the  biographers  of 
the  Britannica  put  foot  on  foreign  ground,  their 
spirit  of  generosity  deserts  them.  And  if  space 
is  any  indication  of  importance,  it  must  be  noted 
that  English  painters  are,  in  the  editors'  estima- 
tion, of  considerably  more  importance  than  paint- 
ers from  abroad. 

Of  William  Etty,  to  whom  three-fourths  of  a 
page  is  devoted,  we  are  told  that  "in  feeling  and 
skill  as  a  colorist  he  has  few  equals.'*  The  im- 
plication here  that  Etty,  as  a  colorist,  has  never 
been  surpassed  scarcely  needs  refutation.     It  is 


88        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

unfortunate,  however,  that  Mr.  Etty  is  not  with 
us  at  present  to  read  this  exorbitant  testimony  to 
his  greatness,  for  it  would  astonish  him,  no  doubt, 
as  much  as  it  would  those  other  few  unnamed 
painters  who  are  regarded  as  his  equals  in  color 
sensibilite.  J.  S.  Cotman,  we  discover,  was  "a  re- 
markable painter  both  in  oil  and  water-color." 
This  criticism  is  characteristic,  for,  even  when 
there  are  no  specific  qualities  to  praise  in  an  Eng- 
lish painter's  work,  we  find  this  type  of  vague 
recommendation. 

No  points,  though,  it  would  seem,  are  over- 
looked. Regard  the  manner  in  which  J.  D.  Hard- 
ing's questionable  gifts  are  recorded.  "Harding," 
you  will  find,  "was  noted  for  facility,  sureness  of 
hand,  nicety  of  touch,  and  the  various  qualities 
which  go  to  make  up  an  elegant,  highly-trained 
and  accomplished  sketcher  from  nature,  and  com- 
poser of  picturesque  landscape  material;  he  was 
particularly  skillful  in  the  treatment  of  foliage." 
Turning  from  Mr.  Harding,  the  "elegant"  and 
"accomplished"  depicter  of  foliage,  to  Birket  Fos- 
ter, we  find  that  his  work  "is  memorable  for  its 
delicacy  and  minute  finish,  and  for  its  daintiness 
and  pleasantness  of  sentiment."  Dainty  and 
pleasant  sentiment  is  not  without  weight  with  the 
art  critics  of  this  encyclopaedia.     In  one  form  or 


BRITISH  PAINTING  89 

another  it  is  mentioned  very  often  in  connection 
with  British  painters. 

Landseer  offers  an  excellent  example  of  the 
middle-class  attitude  which  the  Britannica  takes 
toward  art.  To  judge  from  the  page-and-a-half 
biography  of  this  indifferent  portraitist  of  ani- 
mals one  would  imagine  that  Landseer  was  a 
great  painter,  for  we  are  told  that  his  Fighting 
Dogs  Getting  Wind  is  ''perfectly  drawn,  solidly 
and  minutely  finished,  and  carefully  composed." 
Of  what  possible  educational  value  is  an  art  arti- 
cle which  would  thus  criticise  a  Landseer  pic- 
ture*? 

An  English  painter  who,  were  we  to  accept  the 
Encyclopaedia's  valuation,  combines  the  qualities 
of  several  great  painters  is  Charles  Holroyd.  "In 
all  his  work,"  we  learn,  "Holroyd  displays  an  im- 
pressive sincerity,  with  a  fine  sense  of  composition, 
and  of  style,  allied  to  independent  and  modern 
thinking."  Truly  a  giant!  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  recall  any  other  painter  in  history  "all"  of 
whose  work  displayed  a  "fine  sense  of  composi- 
tion." Not  even  could  this  be  said  of  Michel- 
angelo. But  when  it  comes  to  composition,  Arthur 
Melville  apparently  soars  above  his  fellows.  Be- 
sides, "several  striking  portraits  in  oil,"  he  did  a 
picture  called  The  Return  From  the  Crucifixion^ 


90        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

which,  so  we  are  told,  is  a  "powerful,  colossal  com- 
position." To  have  achieved  only  a  "powerful" 
composition  should  have  been  a  sufficiently  re- 
markable feat  for  a  painter  of  Mr.  Melville's 
standing;  for  only  of  a  very  few  masters  in  the 
world's  history  can  it  be  said  that  their  composi- 
tions were  both  powerful  and  colossal.  El  Greco, 
Giotto,  Giorgione,  Veronese,  Titian,  Michelangelo 
and  Rubens  rarely  soared  to  such  heights. 

But  Melville,  it  appears,  had  a  contemporary 
who,  if  anything,  was  greater  than  he — to-wit: 
W.  Q.  Orchardson,  to  whose  glories  nearly  a  page 
is  devoted.  "By  the  time  he  was  twenty,"  says 
his  biographer,  "Orchardson  had  mastered  the  es- 
sentials of  his  art."  In  short,  at  twenty  he  had 
accomplished  what  few  painters  accomplished  in 
a  lifetime.  A  truly  staggering  feat  I  We  are  not 
therefore  surprised  to  learn  that  "as  a  portrait 
painter  Orchardson  must  be  placed  in  the  first 
class."  Does  this  not  imply  that  he  ranked  with 
Titian,  Velazquez,  Rubens  and  Rembrandt? 
What  sort  of  an  idea  of  the  relative  values  in  art 
will  the  uninformed  person  get  from  such  loose 
and  ill-considered  rhetoric,  especially  when  the 
critic  goes  on  to  say  that  Master  Baby  is  "a  mas- 
terpiece of  design,  color  and  broad  execution'"? 
There  is  much  more  eulogy  of  a  similar  careless 
variety,  but  enough  has  been  quoted  here  to  show 


BRITISH  PAINTING  91 

that  the  world  must  entirely  revise  its  opinions 
of  art  if  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica' s  statements 
are  to  be  accepted. 

Even  the  pictures  of  Paul  Wilson  Steer  are 
criticised  favorably:  "His  figure  subjects  and 
landscapes  show  great  originality  and  technical 
skill."  And  John  Pettie  was  "in  his  best  days  a 
colorist  of  a  high  order  and  a  brilliant  executant." 
George  Reid,  the  Scottish  artist,  is  accorded  over 
half  a  column  with  detailed  criticism  and  praise. 
Frederick  Walker  is  given  no  less  than  an  entire 
column  which  ends  with  a  paragraph  of  fulsome 
eulogy.  Even  E.  A.  Waterlow  painted  land- 
scapes which  were  "admirable"  and  "handled  with 
grace  and  distinction" — more  gaudy  generaliza- 
tions. When  the  Encyclopaedia's  critics  can  find 
no  specific  point  to  praise  in  the  work  of  their  coun- 
trymen, grace,  distinction,  elegance  and  sentiment 
are  turned  into  aesthetic  virtues. 

Turning  to  Hogarth,  we  find  no  less  than  three 
and  one-half  pages  devoted  to  him,  more  space 
than  is  given  to  Rubens's  biography,  and  three 
times  the  space  accorded  Veronese!  It  was  once 
thought  that  Hogarth  was  only  an  "ingenious 
humorist,"  but  "time  has  reversed  that  unjust 
sentence."  We  then  read  that  Hogarth's  com- 
position leaves  "little  or  nothing  to  be  desired." 
If  such  were  the  case,  he  would  unquestionably 


92        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

rank  with  Rubens,  Michelangelo  and  Titian;  for, 
if  indeed  his  composition  leaves  little  or  nothing 
to  be  desired,  he  is  as  great  as,  or  even  greater 
than,  the  masters  of  all  time.  But  even  with  this 
eulogy  the  Encyclopaedia's  critic  does  not  rest  con- 
tent. As  a  humorist  and  a  satirist  upon  canvas, 
"he  has  never  been  equalled."  If  we  regard 
Hogarth  as  an  "author"  rather  than  artist,  "his 
place  is  with  the  great  masters  of  literature — with 
the  Thackerays  and  Fieldings,  the  Cervantes  and 
Molieres."  (Note  that  of  these  four  "great  mas- 
ters" two  are  English.) 

Mastery  in  one  form  or  another,  if  the  Britari' 
nica  is  to  be  believed,  was  common  among  Eng- 
lish painters.  The  pictures  of  Richard  Wilson 
are  "skilled  and  learned  compositions  .  .  .  the 
work  of  a  painter  who  was  thoroughly  master  of 
his  materials."  In  this  latter  respect  Mr.  Wilson 
perhaps  stands  alone  among  the  painters  of  the 
world;  and  yet,  through  some  conspiracy  of  silence 
no  doubt,  the  leading  critics  of  other  nations  rarely 
mention  him  when  speaking  of  those  artists  who 
thoroughly  mastered  their  materials.  In  regard 
to  Raeburn,  the  Encyclopaedia  is  less  fulsome,  de- 
spite the  fact  that  over  a  page  is  allotted  him.  We 
are  distinctly  given  to  understand  that  he  had  his 
faults.  Velazquez,  however,  constantly  reminded 
Wilkie  of  Raeburn;  yet,  after  all,  Raeburn  was 


BRITISH  PAINTING  93 

not  quite  so  great  as  Velazquez.  This  is  frankly- 
admitted. 

It  was  left  to  Reynolds  to  equal  if  not  to  sur- 
pass Velazquez  as  well  as  Rubens  and  Rembrandt. 
In  a  two-page  glorification  of  this  English  painter 
we  come  upon  the  following  panegyric:  "There 
can  be  no  question  of  placing  him  by  the  side  of 
the  greatest  Venetians  or  of  the  triumvirate  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  Rubens,  Rembrandt,  Velaz- 
quez." If  by  placing  him  beside  these  giants  is 
meant  that  he  in  any  wise  approached  their  stature, 
there  can  be,  and  has  been,  outside  of  England, 
a  very  great  question  of  putting  him  in  such  com- 
pany. In  fact,  his  right  to  such  a  place  has  been 
very  definitely  denied  him.  But  the  unprejudiced 
opinion  of  the  world  matters  not  to  the  patriots 
who  edited  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica.  That 
"supreme"  English  reference  work  goes  on  to  say 
that  in  portraits,  such  as  Mrs.  Siddons  as  the 
Tragic  Muse.,  Reynolds  "holds  the  field.  .  .  .  No 
portrait  painter  has  been  more  happy  in  his  poses 
for  single  figures."  Then,  as  if  such  enthusiasm 
were  not  enough,  we  are  told  that  "nature  had 
singled  out  Sir  Joshua  to  endow  him  with  certain 
gifts  in  which  he  has  hardly  an  equal." 

Nature,  it  seems,  in  her  singling  out  process, 
was  particularly  partial  to  Englishmen,  for  among 
those   other  painters   who  just  barely   equalled 


94        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Reynolds's  transcendent  genius  was  Gainsborough. 
Says  the  Britannka:  "Gainsborough  and  Rey- 
nolds rank  side  by  side.  ...  It  is  difficult  to  say 
which  stands  the  higher  of  the  two."  Con- 
sequently hereafter  we  must  place  Gainsborough, 
too,  along  with  Michelangelo,  Rubens,  Rem- 
brandt and  Velazquez !  Such  a  complete  revision 
of  aesthetic  judgment  will,  no  doubt,  be  difficult 
at  first,  but,  by  living  with  the  Encyclopedia  Brit- 
annica  and  absorbing  its  British  culture,  we  may 
in  time  be  able  to  bracket  Michelangelo,  Rey- 
nolds, Rubens,  Gainsborough,  Rembrandt,  Ho- 
garth and  Velazquez  without  the  slightest  hesita- 
tion. 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how,  in  an  encyclo- 
paedia with  lofty  educational  pretences,  extrav- 
agance of  statement  could  attain  so  high  a  point 
as  that  reached  in  the  biographies  of  Reynolds  and 
Gainsborough.  So  obviously  indefensible  are 
these  valuations  that  I  would  hesitate  to  accuse 
the  Britannica! s  editors  of  deliberate  falsification 
— that  is,  of  purposely  distorting  aesthetic  values 
for  the  benefit  of  English  artists.  Their  total 
lack  of  discretion  indicates  an  honest,  if  blind,  be- 
lief in  British  aesthetic  supremacy.  But  this  fact 
does  not  lessen  the  danger  of  such  judgments  to 
the  American  public.  As  a  nation  we  are  ignor- 
ant of  painting  and  therefore  are  apt  to  accept 


BRITISH  PAINTING  95 

statements  of  this  kind  which  have  the  impact  of 
seeming  authority  behind  them. 

The  same  insular  and  extravagant  point  of  view 
is  discoverable  in  the  article  on  Turner.  To  this 
painter  nearly  five  pages  are  devoted — a  space  out 
of  all  proportion  to  the  biographies  of  the  other 
painters  of  the  world.  Titian  has  only  three  and 
one-half  pages;  Rubens  has  only  a  little  over  three 
pages ;  and  El  Greco  has  less  than  two-thirds  of  a 
page !  Of  course,  it  is  not  altogether  fair  to  base 
a  judgment  on  space  alone;  but  such  startling  dis- 
crepancies are  the  rule  and  not  the  exception. 

In  the  case  of  Turner  the  discrepancy  is  not 
only  of  space,  however.  In  diction,  as  well,  all 
relative  values  are  thrown  to  the  winds.  In  the 
criticism  of  Turner  we  find  English  patriotism  at 
its  high-water  mark.  We  read  that  "the  range 
of  his  powers  was  so  vast  that  he  covered  the  whole 
field  of  nature  and  united  in  his  own  person  the 
classical  and  naturalistic  schools."  Even  this  pal- 
pable overstatement  could  be  forgiven,  since  it 
has  a  basis  of  truth,  if  a  little  further  we  did  not 
discover  that  Turner's  Crossing  the  Brook  in  the 
London  National  Academy  is  "probably  the  most 
perfect  landscape  in  the  world."  In  this  final  and 
irrevocable  judgment  is  manifest  the  supreme  in- 
sular egotism  which  characterizes  nearly  all  the 
art  articles  in  the  Encyclopcsdia  Britannica,    This 


96        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

criticism,  to  take  merely  one  example,  means  that 
Crossing  the  Brook  is  more  perfect  than  Rubens's 
Landscape  with  Chateau  de  Stein!  But  the  En- 
cyclopaedia's summary  of  Turner's  genius  sur- 
passes in  flamboyant  chauvinism  anything  which 
I  have  yet  seen  in  print.  It  is  said  that,  despite 
any  exception  we  may  take  to  his  pictures,  "there 
will  still  remain  a  body  of  work  which  for  ex- 
tent, variety,  truth  and  artistic  taste  is  like  the 
British  fleet  among  the  navies  of  the  world." 
Here  patriotic  fervor  has  entirely  swallowed  all 
restraint. 

Over  a  page  is  devoted  to  Constable,  in  which 
we  are  informed  that  his  "vivid  tones  and  fresh 
color  are  grafted  upon  the  formulae  of  Claude  and 
Rubens."  This  type  of  criticism  is  not  rare.  One 
frequently  finds  second-rate  English  artists  com- 
pared not  unfavorably  with  the  great  artists  of 
other  nations;  and  it  would  seem  that  the  English 
painters  add  a  little  touch  of  their  own,  the  impu- 
tation being  that  they  not  seldom  improve  upon 
their  models.  Thus  Constable  adds  "vivid  tones 
and  fresh  colors"  to  Rubens's  formula.  Another 
instance  of  this  kind  is  to  be  found  in  the  case  of 
Alfred  Stevens,  the  British  sculptor,  not  the  Bel- 
gian painter.  (The  latter,  by  the  way,  though 
more  important  and  better-known,  receives  less 
space    than    the    Englishman.)^    The    vigorous 


BRITISH  PAINTING  97 

strength  of  his  groups  "recalls  the  style  of  Mi- 
chelangelo, but  Stevens's  work  throughout  is  orig- 
inal and  has  a  character  of  its  own."  I  do  not 
deny  that  Stevens  imitated  Michelangelo,  but, 
where  English  artists  are  concerned,  these  rela- 
tionships are  indicated  in  deceptive  phraseology. 
In  the  case  of  French  artists,  whose  biographies  are 
sometimes  written  by  unbiased  critics,  the  truth  is 
not  hidden  in  dictional  suavities.  Imitation  is  not 
made  a  virtue. 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Watts.  Over  two  pages 
are  accorded  him,  one  page  being  devoted  largely 
to  eulogy,  a  passage  of  which  reads :  *Tt  was  the 
rare  combination  of  supreme  handicraft  with  a 
great  imaginative  intellect  which  secured  to  Watts 
his  undisputed  place  in  the  public  estimation  of 
his  day."  Furthermore,  we  hear  of  "the  grandeur 
and  dignity  of  his  style,  the  ease  and  purposeful- 
ness  of  his  brushwork,  the  richness  and  harmoni- 
ousness  of  his  coloring."  But  those  "to  whom  his 
exceptional  artistic  attainment  is  a  sealed  book 
have  gathered  courage  or  consolation  from  the 
grave  moral  purpose  and  deep  human  sympathy 
of  his  teaching."  Here  we  have  a  perfect  exam- 
ple of  the  parochial  moral  uplift  which  permeates 
the  Britannica's  art  criticism.  The  great  Presby- 
terian complex  is  found  constantly  in  the  judg- 
ments of  this  encyclopaedia. 


98        MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

So  important  a  consideration  to  the  Britannica^s 
critico-moralists  is  this  puritan  motif  that  the  fact 
is  actually  set  down  that  Millais  was  devoted  to 
his  family  I  One  wonders  how  much  influence 
this  domestic  devotion  had  on  the  critic  who  spends 
a  page  and  a  half  to  tell  us  of  Millais,  for  not 
only  is  this  space  far  in  excess  of  Millais'  im- 
portance, but  the  statement  is  made  that  he  was 
"one  of  the  greatest  painters  of  his  time,"  and 
that  "he  could  paint  what  he  saw  with  a  force 
which  has  seldom  been  excelled."  Unfortu- 
nately the  few  who  excelled  him  are  not  men- 
tioned. Perhaps  he  stood  second  only  to  Turner, 
that  super-dreadnought.  Surely  he  was  not  ex- 
celled by  Renoir,  or  Courbet,  or  Pissarro,  or 
Monet,  or  Manet,  or  Cezanne;  for  these  latter 
are  given  very  little  space  (the  greatest  of  them 
having  no  biography  whatever  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia!);  and  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that 
they  are  considered  of  more  than  minor  im- 
portance. 

Perhaps  it  was  Rossetti,  a  fellow  Pre-Raphael- 
ite, who  excelled  Millais  in  painting  what  he  saw. 
Rossetti's  The  Song  of  Solomon^  as  regards  bril- 
liance, finish  and  the  splendor  of  its  lighting, 
"occupies  a  great  place  in  the  highest  grade  of 
modem  art  of  all  the  world."  Even  Holman 
Hunt,  one  of  the  lesser  Pre-Raphaelites,  is  given 


BRITISH  PAINTING  99 

over  a  full  page,,  and  is  spoken  of  in  glowing 
terms.  "Perhaps  no  painter  of  the  nineteenth 
century,"  we  read,  "produced  so  great  an  im- 
pression by  a  few  pictures"  as  did  Hunt ;  and  dur- 
ing the  course  of  the  eulogy  the  critic  speaks  of 
Hunt's  "greatness."  Can  it  be  that  the  naif 
gentleman  who  wrote  Hunt's  biography  has  never 
heard  of  Courbet,  or  Manet,  or  of  the  Impression- 
ists, or  Cezanne?  After  so  sweeping  and  un- 
reasoned a  statement  as  the  one  concerning  the 
great  impression  made  by  Hunt's  pictures,  such  an 
extreme  conclusion  is  almost  inevitable.  Or  is 
this  critic's  patriotic  vanity  such  that  he  considers 
an  impression  made  in  England  as  representative 
of  the  world?  Even  to  intimate  that  the  impres- 
sion made  by  Hunt's  pictures  was  comparable  to 
that  made  by  L'  Enterrement  a  Ornans  or  Le 
Dejeuner  sur  FHerbe^  or  that  the  Pre-Raphaelites 
possessed  even  half  the  importance  of  Courbet  and 
Manet,  is  to  carry  undeserved  laudation  to  pre- 
posterous lengths. 

Here  as  elsewhere,  superlatives  are  used  in  such 
a  way  in  describing  unimportant  English  painters 
that  no  adequate  adjectives  are  left  for  the  truly 
great  men  of  other  nationality.  It  would  be  dif- 
ficult to  find  a  better  example  of  undeserving 
eulogy  as  applied  to  an  inconsequent  British 
painter  than  that  furnished  by  Brangwyn,  whose 


loo      xMISINFORMING  A  NATION 

compositions,  we  are  astonished  to  learn,  have  "a 
nobly  impressive  and  universal  character."  Such 
a  statement  might  justly  sum  up  the  greatness  of 
a  Michelangelo  statue;  but  here  it  is  attached  to 
the  works  of  a  man  who  at  best  is  no  more  than 
a  capable  and  clever  illustrator. 

The  foregoing  examples  by  no  means  include 
all  the  instances  of  how  English  painters,  as  a  re- 
sult of  the  liberal  space  allotted  them  and  the 
lavish  encomiums  heaped  upon  them  by  the  Eri' 
cyclopedia  Britannica's  editors,  are  unduly  ex- 
panded into  great  and  important  figures.  A 
score  of  other  names  could  be  mentioned.  From 
beginning  to  end,  English  art  is  emphasized  and 
lauded  until  it  is  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  rest 
of  the  world. 

Turn  to  the  article  on  Painting  and  look  at  the 
sub-title,  "Recent  Schools."  Under  "British" 
you  will  find  twelve  columns,  with  inset  headings. 
Under  "French"  you  will  find  only  seven 
columns,  without  insets.  Practically  all  the  ad- 
vances made  in  modern  art  have  come  out  of 
France;  and  practically  all  important  modern 
painters  have  been  Frenchmen.  England  has 
contributed  little  or  nothing  to  modem  painting. 
And  yet,  recent  British  schools  are  given  nearly 
twice  the  space  that  is  devoted  to  recent  French 
schools  I     Again    regard    the    article,    Sculpture^ 


BRITISH  PAINTING  loi 

Even  a  greater  and  more  astonishing  dispropor- 
tionment  exists  here.  Modern  British  sculpture  is 
given  no  less  than  thirteen  and  a  half  columns, 
while  modern  French  sculpture,  of  vastly  greater 
aesthetic  importance,  is  given  only  seven  and  a 
half  columns  I 


VI 

NON-BRITISH    PAINTING 

If  the  same  kind  of  panegyrics  which  characterize 
the  biographies  of  the  British  painters  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica  were  used  in  dealing 
with  the  painters  of  all  nationalities,  there  could 
be  made  no  charge  of  either  unconscious  or  delib- 
erate injustice.  But  once  we  leave  Great  Brit- 
ain's shores,  prodigal  laudation  ceases.  As  if 
worn  out  by  the  effort  of  proving  that  English- 
men are  pre-eminent  among  the  world's  painters, 
the  editors  devote  comparatively  little  space  to 
those  non-British  artists  who,  we  have  always 
believed  and  been  taught,  were  the  trul)^  signifi- 
cant men  in  painting.  Therefore,  if  the  Britan- 
nica's  implications  are  to  be  believed,  England 
alone,  among  all  modern  countries,  is  the  home  of 
genius.  And  it  would  be  difficult  for  one  not 
well  informed  to  escape  the  impression  that  not 
only  Turner,  but  English  painting  in  general,  is 
"like  the  British  fleet  among  the  navies  of  the 
world." 

102 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         103 

A  comparison,  for  instance,  between  English 
and  French  painters,  as  they  are  presented  in  this 
encyclopsedia,  would  leave  the  neophyte  with  the 
conviction  that  France  was  considerably  inferior 
in  regard  to  graphic  ability,  as  inferior,  in  fact — 
if  we  may  read  the  minds  of  the  Britannkd' s 
editors — as  the  French  fleet  is  to  the  British  fleet. 
In  its  ignorant  and  un-English  way  the  world  for 
years  has  been  laboring  under  the  superstition  that 
the  glories  of  modem  painting  had  been  largely 
the  property  of  France.  But  such  a  notion  is  now 
corrected. 

For  instance,  we  had  always  believed  that 
Chardin  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  still-life 
painters.  We  had  thought  him  to  be  of  exceed- 
ing importance,  a  man  with  tremendous  influence, 
deserving  of  no  little  consideration.  But  when 
we  turn  to  his  biography  in  the  Encyclopczdia 
Britannka  we  are,  to  say  the  least,  astonished  at 
the  extent  of  our  over-valuation.  He  is  dismissed 
with  six  lines  I  And  the  only  critical  comment 
concerning  him  is:  "He  became  famous  for  his 
still-life  pictures  and  domestic  interiors."  And 
yet  Thomas  Stothard,  an  English  painter  who  for 
twenty-five  years  was  Chardin's  contemporary,  is 
given  over  a  column;  James  Northcote,  another 
English  contemporary  of  Chardin's,  is  given  half 
a  column ;  and  many  other  British  painters,  whose 


104      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

names  are  little  known  outside  of  England,  have 
long  biographies  and  favorable  criticisms. 

Watteau,  one  of  the  greatest  of  French 
painters,  has  a  biography  of  only  a  page  and  a 
quarter;  Largilliere,  half  a  column;  Rigaud,  less 
than  half  a  column;  Lancret,  a  third  of  a  column; 
and  Boucher  has  only  fifteen  lines — a  mere 
note  with  no  criticism.  (Jonathan  Boucher,  an 
English  divine,  whose  name  follows  that  of 
Boucher,  is  accorded  three  times  the  space!)  La 
Tour  and  Nattier  have  half  a  column  each. 
Greuze,  another  one  of  France's  great  eighteenth- 
century  painters,  is  given  only  a  column  and  a 
half  with  unfavorable  comment.  Greuze's  bril- 
liant reputation  seemed  to  have  been  due,  "not  to 
his  requirements  as  a  painter"  but  to  the  subjects 
of  his  pictures;  and  he  is  then  adversely  accused 
of  possessing  that  very  quality  which  in  an  Eng- 
lish painter,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  mark  of  supreme 
glory — namely,  ''bourgeois  morality."  Half  a 
column  only  is  required  to  comment  on  Horace 
Vernet  and  to  tell  us  that  his  most  representative 
picture  "begins  and  ends  nowhere,  and  the  com- 
position is  all  to  pieces;  but  it  has  good  qualities 
of  faithful  and  exact  representation." 

Fragonard,  another  French  painter  whom  we 
had  always  thought  possessed  of  at  least  a  minor 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         105 

greatness,  is  accorded  no  more  than  a  column,  less 
than  half  the  space  given  to  B.  R.  Hay  don,  the 
eighteenth-century  English  historical  painter,  and 
only  one-third  of  the  space  devoted  to  David 
Wilkie,  the  Scotch  painter.  Fragonard's  "scenes 
of  love  and  voluptuousness,"  comments  that  art 
critic  of  the  London  Daily  Mail,  who  has  been 
chosen  to  represent  this  French  painter  in  the  En- 
cyclopsedia,  "are  only  made  acceptable  by  the 
tender  beauty  of  his  color  and  the  virtuosity  of  his 
facile  brushwork."  Alas  I  that  Fragonard  did  not 
possess  the  "grave  moral  purpose"  of  Watts! 
Had  his  work  been  less  voluptuous  he  might  have 
been  given  more  than  a  fourth  of  the  space  de- 
voted to  that  moral  Englishman,  for  surely 
Fragonard  was  the  greater  painter. 

Gericault,  one  of  the  very  important  innovators 
of  French  realism,  is  given  half  a  column,  about 
an  equal  amount  of  space  with  such  English 
painters  as  W.  E.  Frost,  T.  S.  Cooper,  Thomas 
Creswick,  Francis  Danby  and  David  Scott;  only 
about  half  the  amount  of  space  given  to  John  Gil- 
bert, C.  L.  Eastlake,  and  William  Mulready ;  and 
only  one-third  of  the  space  given  to  David  Cox. 
One  or  two  such  disparities  in  space  m.ight  be 
overlooked,  but  when  to  almost  any  kind  of  an 
English  painter  is  imputed  an  importance  equal 


io6      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

to,  if  not  greater  than,  truly  significant  painters 
from  France,  bias,  whether  conscious  or  uncon- 
scious, has  been  established. 

Again  regard  Poussin.  This  artist,  the  most 
representative  painter  of  his  epoch  and  a  man 
who  marked  a  distinct  step  in  the  evolution  of 
graphic  art,  is  given  less  than  half  a  page,  about 
equal  to  the  space  devoted  to  W.  P.  Frith,  J.  W. 
Gordon,  Samuel  Cousins,  John  Crome,  William 
Strang,  and  Thornhill;  and  only  half  the  space 
given  to  Holman  Hunt,  and  only  one-third  the 
space  given  to  Millais  I  There  is  almost  no  criti- 
cism of  Poussin's  art;  merely  a  statement  of  the 
type  of  work  he  did;  and  of  Gericault  there  is  no 
criticism  whatever.  Herein  lies  another  means 
by  which,  through  implication,  a  greater  relative 
significance  is  conferred  on  English  art.  Gen- 
erally British  painters — even  minor  ones — are 
criticised  favorably,  from  one  standpoint  or  an- 
other; but  only  now  and  then  is  a  Frenchman 
given  specific  complimentary  criticism.  And 
often  a  Frenchman  is  condemned  for  the  very 
quality  which  is  lauded  in  a  British  artist. 

Of  David  it  is  written:  "His  style  is  severely 
academic,  his  color  lacking  in  richness  and 
warmth,  his  execution  hard  and  uninteresting  in 
its  very  perfection,"  and  more  in  the  same  dero- 
gatory strain.     Although  this  criticism  may  be 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         107 

strictly  accurate,  the  same  qualities  in  certain 
English  painters  of  far  less  importance  than 
David  are  made  the  basis  for  praise.  The  se- 
verely academic  style  in  the  case  of  Harding,  for 
instance,  becomes  an  "elegant,  highly-trained" 
characteristic.  And  perfection  of  execution 
makes  Birket  Foster's  work  "memorable  for  its 
delicacy  and  minute  finish,"  and  becomes,  in  Paul 
Wilson  Steer's  pictures,  "great  technical  skill." 

Ingres,  truly  one  of  the  giants  of  his  day,  is 
given  little  or  no  criticism  and  his  biography 
draws  only  a  little  over  half  the  space  which  is 
given  to  Watts  (with  his  "grave,  moral  pur- 
pose"), and  only  a  trifle  more  space  than  is  given 
Millais,  the  Pre-Raphaelite  who  was  "devoted  to 
his  family."  In  Guerin's  short  biography  we 
read  of  his  "strained  and  pompous  dignity." 
Girodet's  biography  contains  very  adverse  crit- 
icism: his  style  "harmonized  ill"  with  his  sub- 
jects, and  his  work  was  full  of  "incongruity"  even 
to  the  point  sometimes  of  being  "ludicrous." 
Gros,  exasperated  by  criticism,  "sought  refuge  in 
the  grosser  pleasures  of  life."  Flandrin  also  is 
tagged  with  a  moral  criticism. 

Coming  down  to  the  more  modem  painters  we 
find  even  less  consideration  given  them  by  the 
Britannica's  editors.  Delacroix,  who  ushered  in 
a  new  age  of  painting  and  brought  composition 


io8      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

back  to  art  after  a  period  of  stagnation  and 
quiescence,  is  nailed  to  France  as  follows:  "As 
a  colorist  and  a  romantic  painter  he  now  ranks 
among  the  greatest  of  French  artists."  Certainly 
not  among  the  greatest  English  painters,  for  Con- 
stable is  given  more  space  than  Delacroix;  and 
Turner,  the  other  precursor  of  the  new  era,  is  "like 
the  British  fleet  among  the  navies  of  the  world." 

Courbet,  the  father  of  modern  painting  and  the 
artist  who  revolutionized  aesthetics,  is  given  half 
a  column,  equal  space  with  those  contemporaries 
of  his  from  across  the  Channel,  Francis  Grant, 
Thomas  Creswick  and  George  Harvey.  Perhaps 
this  neglect  of  the  great  Frenchman  is  explained 
by  the  following  early-Victorian  complaint: 
"Sometimes,  it  must  be  owned,  his  realism  is 
rather  coarse  and  brutal."  And  we  learn  that 
"he  died  of  a  disease  of  the  liver  aggravated  by 
intemperance."  Courbet,  unable  to  benefit  by 
the  pious  and  elegant  esthetiqiie  of  the  Encyclo- 
padia  Britannica,  was  never  deeply  impressed  by 
the  artistic  value  of  "daintiness  and  pleasantness 
of  sentiment,"  and  as  a  result,  perhaps,  he  is  not 
held  in  as  high  esteem  as  is  Birket  Foster,  who 
possessed  those  delicate  and  pleasing  qualities. 

The  palpable,  insular  injustice  dealt  Courbet 
in  point  of  space  finds  another  victim  in  Daumier 
whose  biography  is  almost  as  brief  as  that  of  Cour- 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         109 

bet.  Most  of  it,  however,  is  devoted  to  Dau- 
mier's  caricature.  Although  this  type  of  work 
was  but  a  phase  of  his  development,  the  article 
says  that,  despite  his  caricatures,  "he  found  time 
for  flight  in  the  higher  sphere  of  painting."  Not 
only  does  this  create  a  false  impression  of  Dau- 
mier's  tremendous  importance  to  modern  paint- 
ing, but  it  gives  the  erroneous  idea  that  his 
principal  metier  was  caricature.  The  entire 
criticism  of  his  truly  great  work  is  summed  up  in 
the  sentence:  "As  a  painter,  Daumier,  one  of  the 
pioneers  of  naturalism,  was  before  his  time." 
Likewise,  the  half-page  biography  of  Manet  is, 
from  the  standpoint  of  space,  inadequate,  and 
from  the  critical  standpoint,  incompetent.  To 
say  that  he  is  "regarded  as  the  most  important 
master  of  Impressionism"  is  a  false  statement. 
Manet,  strictly  speaking,  was  not  an  Impressionist 
at  all ;  and  the  high  place  that  he  holds  in  modern 
art  is  not  even  touched  upon. 

Such  biographies  as  the  foregoing  are  suf- 
ficiently inept  to  disqualify  the  Encyclopaedia  as 
a  source  for  accurate  aesthetic  information;  but 
when  Renoir,  who  is  indeed  recognized  as  the 
great  master  of  Impressionism,  is  dismissed  with 
one-fifth  of  a  page,  the  height  of  injustice  has 
been  reached.  Renoir,  even  in  academic  circles, 
is  admittedly  one  of  the  great  painters  of  all  time. 


no      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Not  only  did  he  sum  up  the  Impressionists,  close 
up  an  experimental  cycle,  and  introduce  com- 
positional form  into  the  realistic  painting  of  his 
day,  but  by  his  colossal  vision  and  technical 
mastery  he  placed  himself  in  the  very  front  rank 
of  all  modern  painters,  if  not  of  ancient  painters 
as  well.  Yet  he  is  accorded  just  twenty -seven 
lines  and  dismissed  with  this  remark:  ''Though 
he  is  perhaps  the  most  unequal  of  the  great  Im- 
pressionists, his  finest  works  rank  among  the 
masterpieces  of  the  modern  French  school." 
Critical  incompetency  could  scarcely  go  further. 
We  can  only  excuse  such  inadequacy  and  ignor- 
ance on  the  ground  that  the  Encyclopaedia's  Eng- 
lish critic  has  seen  none  of  Renoir's  greatest  work; 
and  color  is  lent  this  theory  when  we  note  that  in 
the  given  list  of  his  paintings  no  mention  is  made 
of  his  truly  masterful  canvases. 

Turning  to  the  other  lesser  moderns  in  French 
painting  but  those  who  surpass  the  contemporan- 
eous British  painters  who  are  given  liberal  biog- 
raphies, we  find  them  very  decidedly  neglected 
as  to  both  space  and  comment.  Such  painters  as 
Cazin,  Harpignies,  Ziem,  Cormon,  Besnard,  Cot- 
tct  and  Bonnot  are  dismissed  with  brief  mention, 
whereas  sometimes  twice  and  three  times  the  at- 
tention is  paid  to  English  painters  like  Alfred 
East,  Harry  Furniss  (a  caricaturist  and  illustra- 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         in 

tor),  Francis  Lathrop,  E.  J.  Poynter,  and  W.  B. 
Richmond.  Even  Meissonier  and  Puvis  de  Cha- 
vannes  draw  only  three- fourths  of  a  page. 
Pissarro  and  Monet,  surely  important  painters  in 
the  modern  evolution,  are  given  short  shrift.  A 
few  brief  facts  concerning  Pissarro  extend  to 
twenty  lines;  and  Monet  gets  a  quarter  of  a  page 
without  any  criticism  save  that  "he  became  a  plein 
air  painter."  Examples  of  this  kind  of  incompe- 
tent and  insufficient  comment  could  be  multiplied. 
The  most  astonishing  omission,  however,  in  the 
entire  art  division  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica 
is  that  of  Cezanne.  Here  is  a  painter  who, 
whether  one  appreciates  his  work  or  not,  has  ad- 
mittedly had  more  influence  than  any  man  of 
modern  times.  Not  only  in  France  has  his  tre- 
mendous power  been  felt,  but  in  practically  every 
other  civilized  country.  Yet  the  name  of  this 
great  Frenchman  is  not  even  given  biographical 
mention  in  the  great  English  Encyclopsedia  with 
its  twenty-nine  volumes,  its  30,000  pages,  its 
500,000  references,  and  its  44,000,000  words. 
Deliberately  to  omit  Cezanne's  biography,  in  view 
of  his  importance  and  (in  the  opinion  of  many) 
his  genuine  greatness,  is  an  act  of  almost  unbe- 
lievable narrow-mindedness.  To  omit  his  biog- 
raphy unconsciously  is  an  act  of  almost  unbeliev- 
able ignorance.     Especially  is  this  true  when  we 


112       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

find  biographies  of  such  British  contemporaries  of 
Cezanne  as  Edward  John  Gregory,  James 
Guthrie,  Luke  Fildes,  H.  W.  B.  Davis,  John 
Buxton  Knight,  George  Reid,  and  J.  W.  Water- 
house.  Nor  can  the  editors  offer  the  excuse  that 
Cezanne  was  not  known  when  the  Encyclopaedia 
was  compiled.  Not  only  was  he  known,  but 
books  and  criticisms  had  appeared  on  him  in  more 
than  one  language,  and  his  greatness  had  been 
recognized.  True,  he  had  not  reached  England; 
but  is  it  not  the  duty  of  the  editor  of  an  "inter- 
national" encyclopsedia  to  be  aware  of  what 
is  going  on  outside  of  his  own  narrow  prov- 
ince? 

Any  encyclopaedia,  no  matter  what  the  na- 
tionality, prejudices  or  tastes  of  its  editors,  which 
omits  Cezanne  has  forfeited  its  claim  to  universal 
educational  value.  But  when  in  addition  there 
is  no  biographical  mention  of  such  conspicuous 
French  painters  as  Maurice  Denis,  Vollatton,  Lu- 
cien  Simon,  Vuillard,  Louis  Le  Grand,  Toulouse- 
Lautrec,  Steinlen,  Jean  Paul  Laurens,  Redon, 
Rene  Menard,  Gauguin,  and  Carriere,  although 
a  score  of  lesser  painters  of  British  birth  are  in- 
cluded, petty  national  prejudice,  whether  through 
conscious  intent  or  lack  of  information,  has  been 
carried  to  an  extreme;  and  the  editors  of  such  a 
biased  work  have  something  to  answer  for  to  those 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         113 

readers  who  are  not  English,  and  who  do  not 
therefore  believe  that  British  middle-class  culture 
should  be  exaggerated  and  glorified  at  the  expense 
of  the  genuine  intellectual  culture  of  other 
nations. 

Modern  German  painting  fares  even  worse 
than  French  painting  in  the  pages  of  the  Britau' 
nica;  and  while  it  does  not  hold  the  high  place 
that  French  painting  does,  it  is  certainly  deserv- 
ing of  far  more  liberal  treatment  than  that  which 
is  accorded  it.  The  comparatively  few  biog- 
raphies of  German  artists  are  inadequate;  but  it 
is  not  in  them  that  we  find  the  greatest  neglect  of 
German  achievements  in  this  branch  of  aesthetics : 
it  is  in  the  long  list  of  conspicuous  painters  who 
are  omitted  entirely.  The  BritanniccC s  meagre 
information  on  German  art  is  particularly  regret- 
table from  the  standpoint  of  American  readers; 
for  the  subject  is  little  known  in  this  country,  and 
as  a  nation  we  are  woefully  ignorant  of  the  wealth 
of  nineteenth-century  German  painting.  The 
causes  for  this  ignorance  need  not  be  gone  into 
here.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica^  far  from  fulfilling  its  function  as  a 
truly  educational  work,  is  calculated  to  perpetuate 
and  cement  our  lack  of  knowledge  in  this  field. 
It  would  appear  that  England  also  is  unac- 
quainted with  the  merits  of  German  graphic  ex- 


114      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

pression;  for  the  lapses  in  the  Britannica  would 
seem  even  too  great  to  be  accounted  for  on  the 
grounds  of  British  chauvinism.  And  they  are 
too  obvious  to  have  been  deliberate. 

Among  the  important  German  painters  of 
modern  times  who  have  failed  to  be  given  biog- 
raphies are  Wilhelm  Leibl,  the  greatest  German 
painter  since  Holbein;  Charles  Schuch,  one  of 
Germany's  foremost  still-life  artists;  Triibner, 
who  ranks  directly  in  line  with  Leibl ;  Karl  Spitz- 
weg,  the  forerunner  and  classic  exponent  of  Ger- 
man genre  painting  as  well  as  the  leading  artist 
in  that  field ;  Heinrich  von  Ziigel,  one  of  the  fore- 
most animal  painters  of  modern  times;  and  Lud- 
wig  Knaus  who,  though  inferior,  is  a  painter  of 
world-wide  fame.  Furthermore,  there  are  no 
biographies  of  Franz  Kriiger,  Miiller,  Von 
Marees,  Habermann,  and  Louis  Corinth.  When 
we  recall  the  extensive  list  of  inferior  British 
painters  who  are  not  only  given  biographies  but 
praised,  we  wonder  on  just  what  grounds  the 
Britannica  was  advertised  and  sold  as  an  "inter- 
national dictionary  of  biography." 

It  might  be  well  to  note  here  that  Van  Gogh, 
the  great  Hollander,  does  not  appear  once  in  the 
entire  Encyclopaedia:  there  is  not  so  much  as  a 
passing  reference  to  him  I  Nor  has  Zorn  or  Hod- 
ler  a  biography.     And  Sorolla  draws  just  twenty 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         ii^ 

lines  in  his  biography,  and  Zuloaga  less  than  half 
a  column. 

Despite,  however,  the  curtailed  and  inferior 
consideration  given  Continental  art,  it  does  not 
suffer  from  prejudicial  neglect  nearly  so  much  as 
does  American  art.  This  is  not  wholly  surprising 
in  view  of  the  contempt  in  which  England  holds 
the  cultural  achievements  of  this  country — a  con- 
tempt which  is  constantly  being  encountered  in 
British  critical  journals.  But  in  the  case  of  an 
encyclopaedia  whose  stated  aim  is  to  review  im- 
partially the  world's  activities,  this  contempt 
should  be  suppressed  temporarily  at  least,  espe- 
cially as  it  is  from  America  that  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  is  reaping  its  monetary  harvest. 
There  is,  though,  no  indication  that  England's 
contemptuous  attitude  toward  our  art  has  even 
been  diminished.  Our  artists  are  either  disposed 
of  with  cursory  mention  or  ignored  completely; 
and  whenever  it  is  possible  for  England  to  claim 
any  credit  for  the  accomplishments  of  our  artists, 
the  opportunity  is  immediately  grasped. 

It  is  true,  of  course,  that  the  United  States  does 
not  rank  sesthetically  with  certain  of  the  older  na- 
tions of  Europe,  but,  considering  America's  youth, 
she  has  contributed  many  important  names  to  the 
history  of  painting,  and  among  her  artists  there 
are  many  who  greatly  surpass  the  inconsequent 


ii6      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

English  academicians  who  are  accorded  generous 
treatment. 

The  editors  of  the  Encyclopaedia  may  contend 
that  the  work  was  compiled  for  England  and  that 
therefore  they  were  justified  in  placing  emphasis 
on  a  horde  of  obscure  English  painters  and  in  neg- 
lecting significant  French  and  German  artists. 
But  they  can  offer  no  such  excuse  in  regard  to 
America.  The  recent  Eleventh  Edition  of  the 
Encyclop(2dza  Britannica  was  printed  with  the 
very  definite  purpose  of  selling  in  the  United 
States;  and  the  fact  that  they  have  sold  many 
thousand  copies  of  it  here  precludes  any  reason 
why  American  artists  should  be  neglected  or  dis- 
posed of  in  a  brief  and  perfunctory  fashion.  An 
American  desiring  adequate  information  concern- 
ing the  painters  or  sculptors  of  his  own  country 
will  seek  through  the  Encyclopczdia  Britannica  in 
vain.  If  he  is  entirely  ignorant  of  sesthetic  condi- 
tions in  America  and  depends  on  the  Encyclo- 
paedia for  his  knowledge,  he  will  be  led  to  inac- 
curate conclusions.  The  ideas  of  relative  values 
established  in  his  mind  will  be  the  reverse  of  the 
truth,  for  he  cannot  fail  but  be  affected  by  the 
meagre  and  indifferent  biographies  of  his  native 
painters,  as  compared  with  the  lengthy  and  metic- 
ulous concern  with  which  British  painters  are 
regarded. 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         117 

And  yet  this  is  the  encyclopsedia  which  has  been 
foisted  upon  the  American  people  by  means  of  a 
P.  T.  Barnum  advertising  campaign  almost  un- 
precedented in  book  histor)^  And  this  also  is  the 
encyclopaedia  which,  in  that  campaign,  called 
itself  "a  history  of  all  nations,  an  international 
dictionary  of  biography,  an  exhaustive  gazetteer 
of  the  world,  a  hand-book  to  all  the  arts";  and 
which  announced  that  "every  artist  or  sculptor 
of  note  of  any  period,  and  of  any  land  is  the  sub- 
ject of  an  interesting  biography."  This  last 
statement  is  true  only  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain. 
It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  not  true  of  France  or  Ger- 
many; and  especially  is  it  not  true  of  America. 
Not  only  are  many  American  artists  and  sculptors 
of  note  omitted  entirely,  but  many  of  those  who 
have  been  awarded  mention  are  the  victims  of 
English  insular  prejudice. 

Looking  up  Benjamin  West,  who,  by  historians 
and  critics  has  always  been  regarded  as  an  Amer- 
ican artist,  we  find  him  designated  as  an  "Eng- 
lish" painter.  The  designation  is  indeed  aston- 
ishing, since  not  only  does  the  world  know  him 
as  an  American,  but  West  himself  thought  that 
he  was  an  American.  Perhaps  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica,  by  some  obscure  process  of  logic,  con- 
siders nationality  from  the  standpoint  of  one's 
sentimental     adoption.     This    being    the    case. 


ii8      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Richard  Le  Gallienne  would  be  an  "American" 
poet.  But  when  we  turn  to  Le  Gallienne's  biog- 
raphy we  discover  that,  after  all,  he  is  "English." 
Apparently  the  rule  does  not  work  with  English- 
men. It  is  true  that  West  went  to  London  and 
lived  there;  but  he  was  born  in  the  United  States, 
gained  a  reputation  for  painting  here,  and  did  not 
go  to  England  until  he  was  twenty-five.  It  is 
noteworthy  that  West,  the  "English"  painter,  is 
accorded  considerable  space. 

Whistler,  who  also  chose  England  in  preference 
to  America,  is  given  nearly  a  page  and  a  half  with 
not  unfavorable  criticism.  We  cannot  refrain 
from  wondering  what  would  have  been  Whistler's 
fate  at  the  hands  of  the  Encyclopsedia's  editors 
had  he  remained  in  his  native  country.  Sargent, 
surely  a  painter  of  considerable  importance  and 
one  who  is  regarded  in  many  enlightened  quarters 
as  a  great  artist,  is  dismissed  with  less  than  half  a 
column!  Even  this  comparatively  long  biogra- 
phy for  an  American  painter  may  be  accounted 
for  by  the  following  comment:  "Though  of  the 
French  school,  and  American  by  birth,  it  is  as  a 
British  artist  that  he  won  fame."  Again,  Abbey 
receives  high  praise  and  quite  a  long  biography, 
comparatively  speaking.  Once  more  we  wonder 
if  this  painter's  adoption  of  England  as  his  home 
does    not    account    for    his    liberal    treatment. 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         119 

Albert  F.  Bellows,  too,  gets  fourteen  lines,  in 
which  it  is  noted  that  "he  painted  much  in  Eng- 
land." 

Compare  the  following  record  with  the  amounts 
of  space  accorded  British  second-rate  painters: 
William  Chase,  sixteen  lines;  Vedder,  a  third  of 
a  column;  de  Forest  Brush,  fifteen  lines;  T.  W. 
Dewing,  twelve  lines;  A.  H.  Wyant,  ten  lines; 
A.  P.  Ryder,  eight  lines;  Tryon,  fifteen  lines; 
John  W.  Alexander,  sixteen  lines;  Gari  Melchers, 
eighteen  lines;  Childe  Hassam,  fifteen  lines; 
Blashiield,  ten  lines;  J.  Francis  Murphy,  fifteen 
lines ;  Blakelock,  eight  lines.  Among  these  names 
are  painters  of  a  high  and  important  order — 
painters  who  stand  in  the  foremost  rank  of  Amer- 
ican art,  and  who  unquestionably  are  greater  than 
a  score  of  English  painters  who  receive  very 
special  critical  biographies,  some  of  which  extend 
over  columns.  And  yet — apparently  for  no  other 
discernible  reason  than  that  they  are  Americans — 
they  are  given  the  briefest  mention  with  no  spe- 
cific criticism.  Only  the  barest  biographical  de- 
tails are  set  down. 

But  if  many  of  the  American  painters  who  have 
made  our  art  history  are  dismissed  peremptorily 
in  biographies  which,  I  assure  you,  are  not  "in- 
teresting," and  which  obviously  are  far  from  ade- 
quate or  even  fair  when  compared  with  the  con- 


120       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

sideration  given  lesser  English  painters,  what 
answer  have  the  editors  of  the  Britannica  to  offer 
their  American  customers  when  many  of  our  note- 
worthy and  important  artists  are  omitted  alto- 
gether? On  what  grounds  is  a  biography  of  J. 
Alden  Weir  omitted  entirely?  For  what  reason 
does  the  name  of  Robert  Henri  not  appear? 
Henri  is  one  of  the  very  important  figures  in 
modern  American  painting. 

Furthermore,  inspection  reveals  the  fact  that 
among  those  American  "painters  of  note"  who,  so 
far  as  biographical  mention  in  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  is  concerned,  do  not  exist,  are  Mary 
Cassatt,  George  Bellows,  Twachtman,  C.  W. 
Hawthorne,  Glackens,  Jerome  Meyers,  George 
Luks,  Sergeant  Kendall,  Paul  Dougherty,  Allen 
Talcott,  Thomas  Doughty,  Richard  Miller  and 
Charles  L.  Elliott. 

I  could  add  more  American  painters  to  the 
list  of  those  who  are  omitted  and  who  are  of  equal 
importance  with  certain  British  painters  who  are 
included;  but  enough  have  been  mentioned  to 
prove  the  gross  inadequacy  of  the  Encyclop^zdia 
Britannica  as  an  educational  record  of  American 
art. 

Outside  of  certain  glaring  omissions,  what  we 
read  in  the  Encyclopaedia  concerning  the  painters 
of  France  and  Germany  may  be  fair,  from  a 


NON-BRITISH  PAINTING         121 

purely  impartial  standard,  if  taken  alone :  in  some 
instances,  I  believe,  judicial  critics  of  these  other 
nations  have  performed  the  service.  But  when 
these  unprejudiced  accounts  are  interspersed  with 
the  patriotic  and  enthusiastic  glorifications  of 
British  art,  the  only  conclusion  which  the  unin- 
formed man  can  draw  from  the  combination  is 
that  the  chief  beauties  of  modern  painting  have 
sprung  from  England — a  conclusion  which  illy 
accords  both  with  the  facts  and  with  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world's  impartial  critics.  But  in  the 
case  of  American  art,  not  even  the  strictly  impar- 
tial treatment  occasionally  accorded  French  and 
German  painters  is  to  be  found,  with  the  result 
that,  for  the  most  part,  our  art  suffers  more  than 
that  of  any  other  nation  when  compared,  in  the 
pages  of  the  Britannica^  with  British  art. 


VII 

MUSIC 

There  is  one  field  of  culture — namely,  music — 
in  which  Great  Britain  has  played  so  small  and 
negligible  a  part  that  it  would  seem  impossible, 
even  for  the  passionately  patriotic  editors  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica^  to  find  any  basis  on 
which  an  impressive  monument  to  England  could 
be  erected.  Great  Britain,  admittedly,  possesses 
but  slight  musical  significance  when  compared 
with  other  nations.  The  organisms  of  her  en- 
vironment, the  temper  of  her  intellect,  her  very 
intellectual  fibre,  are  opposed  to  the  creation  of 
musical  composition. 

This  art  in  England,  save  during  the  Eliz- 
abethan era,  has  been  largely  a  by-product.  No 
great  musical  genius  has  come  out  of  Great  Brit- 
ain; and  in  modem  times  she  has  not  produced 
even  a  great  second-rate  composer.  So  evident  is 
England's  deficiency  in  this  field,  that  any  one 
insisting  upon  it  runs  the  risk  of  being  set  down  a 
platitudinarian.  Even  British  critics  of  the  bet- 
ter class  have  not  been  backward  in  admitting  the 

122 


MUSIC  123 

musical  poverty  of  their  nation;  and  many  good 
histories  of  music  have  come  out  of  England: 
indeed,  one  of  the  very  best  encyclopsedias  on  this 
subject  was  written  by  Sir  George  Grove. 

To  attempt  to  place  England  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  other  nations  in  the  realm  of  music  is  to 
alter  obvious  facts.  Name  all  the  truly  great 
composers  since  1700,  and  not  one  of  them  will 
be  an  Englishman.  In  fact,  it  is  possible  to  write 
an  extensive  history  of  music  from  that  date  to 
the  present  time  without  once  referring  to  Great 
Britain.  England,  as  the  world  knows,  is  not  a 
musical  nation.  Her  temperament  is  not  suited 
to  subtle  complexities  of  plastic  harmonic  expres- 
sion. Her  modern  composers  are  without  im- 
portance; and  for  every  one  of  her  foremost 
musical  creators  there  can  be  named  a  dozen  from 
other  nations  who  are  equally  inspired,  and  yet 
who  hold  no  place  in  the  world's  musical  evolu- 
tion because  of  contemporary  fellow-countrymen 
who  overshadow  them. 

As  I  have  said,  it  would  seem  impossible,  even 
for  so  narrowly  provincial  and  chauvinistic  a 
work  as  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica,  to  find  any 
plausible  basis  for  the  glorification  of  English 
musical  genius.  But  where  others  fail  to  achieve 
the  impossible,  the  Britannica  succeeds.  In  the 
present  instance,  however,  the  task  has  been  dif- 


124      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ficult,  for  there  is  a  certain  limit  to  the  undeserved 
praise  which  even  a  blatant  partisan  can  confer 
on  English  composers;  and  there  is  such  a  paucity 
of  conspicuous  names  in  the  British  musical  field 
that  an  encyclopaedia  editor  finds  it  difficult  to 
gather  enough  of  them  together  to  make  an  ex- 
tensive patriotic  showing.  He  can,  however, 
omit  or  neglect  truly  significant  names  of  other 
nations  while  giving  undue  prominence  to  second- 
and  third-rate  English  composers. 

And  this  is  exactly  the  method  followed  by  the 
editors  of  the  Britannica.  But  the  disproportion- 
ments  are  so  obvious,  the  omissions  so  glaring,  and 
the  biographies  and  articles  so  distorted,  both  as 
to  space  and  comment,  that  almost  any  one  with 
a  knowledge  of  music  will  be  immediately  struck 
by  their  absurdity  and  injustice.  Modern  mu- 
sical culture,  as  set  forth  in  this  encyclopaedia,  is 
more  biased  than  any  other  branch  of  culture.  In 
this  field  the  limits  of  the  Britannica^s  insularity 
would  seem  to  have  been  reached. 

I  have  yet  to  see  even  a  short  history  of  modern 
music  which  is  not  more  informative  and  com- 
plete, and  from  which  a  far  better  idea  of  musical 
evolution  could  not  be  gained.  And  I  know  of 
no  recent  book  of  composers,  no  matter  how  brief, 
which  does  not  give  more  comprehensive  informa- 
tion concerning  musical  writers  than  does  that 


MUSIC  125 

"supreme  book  of  knowledge,"  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica.  So  deficient  is  it  in  its  data,  and  so 
many  great  and  significant  modern  composers  are 
denied  biographical  mention  in  it,  that  one  is  led 
to  the  conclusion  that  little  or  no  effort  was  made 
to  bring  it  up-to-date. 

It  would  be  impossible  in  this  short  chapter  to 
set  down  anywhere  near  all  the  inadequacies, 
omissions  and  disproportions  which  inform  the 
Britannica's  treatment  of  music.  Therefore  I 
shall  confine  myself  largely  to  modern  music, 
since  this  subject  is  of  foremost,  vital  concern  at 
present ;  and  I  shall  merely  indicate  the  more  glar- 
ing instances  of  incompleteness  and  neglect. 
Furthermore,  I  shall  make  only  enough  com- 
parisons between  the  way  in  which  British  music 
is  treated  and  the  way  in  which  the  music  of  other 
nations  is  treated,  to  indicate  the  partisanship 
which  underlies  the  outlook  of  this  self-styled  "in- 
ternational" and  "universal"  reference  work. 

Let  us  first  regard  the  general  article  Music. 
In  that  division  of  the  article  entitled,  Recent 
Music — that  is,  music  during  the  last  sixty  or 
seventy-five  years — we  find  the  following  aston- 
ishing division  of  space :  recent  German  music  re- 
ceives just  eleven  lines;  recent  French  music, 
thirty-eight  lines,  or  less  than  half  a  column;  re- 
cent Italian  music,  nineteen  lines;  recent  Russian 


126      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

music,  thirteen  lines;  and  recent  British  music, 
nearly  four  columns^  or  two  full  pages  I 

Regard  these  figures  a  moment.  That  period 
of  German  musical  composition  which  embraced 
such  men  as  Humperdinck,  Richard  Strauss, 
Karl  Goldmark,  Hugo  Wolf,  Gustav  Mahler, 
Bruch,  Reinecke,  and  von  Biilow,  is  allotted  only 
eleven  lines,  and  only  two  of  the  above  names  are 
even  mentioned  I  And  yet  modern  British  music, 
which  is  of  vastly  lesser  importance,  is  given 
thirty-five  times  as  much  space  as  modem  German 
music,  and  ten  times  as  much  space  as  modem 
French  music  I  In  these  figures  we  have  an  ex- 
ample of  prejudice  and  discrimination  which  it 
would  be  hard  to  match  in  any  other  book  or 
music  in  existence.  It  is  unnecessary  to  criticise 
such  bias:  the  figures  themselves  are  more  elo- 
quently condemning  than  any  comment  could 
possibly  be.  And  it  is  to  this  article  on  recent 
music,  with  its  almost  unbelievable  distortions  of 
relative  importance,  that  thousands  of  Americans 
will  apply  for  information.  Furthermore,  in  the 
article  Opera  there  is  no  discussion  of  modern 
realistic  developments,  and  the  names  of  Puccini 
and  Charpentier  are  not  even  included ! 

In  the  biographies  of  English  composers  is  to  be 
encountered  the  same  sort  of  prejudice  and  exag- 
geration.    Stemdale  Bennett,  the  inferior  British 


MUSIC  127 

Mendelssohn,  is  given  nearly  a  column,  and  in  the 
criticism  of  him  we  read:  "The  principal  charm 
of  Bennett's  compositions  (not  to  mention  his  ab- 
solute mastery  of  the  musical  form)  consists  in 
the  tenderness  of  their  conception,  rising  oc- 
casionally to  sweetest  musical  intensity."  Turn- 
ing from  Bennett,  the  absolute  master  of  form,  to 
William  Thomas  Best,  the  English  organist,  we 
find  nearly  a  half-column  biography  of  fulsome 
praise,  in  which  Best  is  written  down  as  an  "all- 
round  musician."  Henry  Bishop  receives  two- 
thirds  of  a  column.  "His  melodies  are  clear, 
flowing,  appropriate  and  often  charming;  and  his 
harmony  is  always  pure,  simple  and  sweet." 

Alfred  Cellier  is  accorded  nearly  half  a  column, 
in  which  we  are  told  that  his  music  was  "invar- 
iably distinguished  by  elegance  and  refinement." 
Frederick  Cowen  also  wrote  music  which  was  "re- 
fined"; and  in  his  three-fourths-of-a-column 
biography  it  is  stated  that  "he  succeeds  wonder- 
fully in  finding  graceful  expression  for  the  poet- 
ical idea."  John  Field  infused  "elegance"  into 
his  music.  His  biography  is  over  half  a  column 
in  length,  and  we  learn  that  his  nocturnes  "remain 
all  but  unrivaled  for  their  tenderness  and  dream- 
iness of  conception,  combined  with  a  continuous 
flow  of  beautiful  melody." 

Edward  Elgar  receives  no  less  than  two-thirds 


128      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

of  a  column,  in  which  are  such  phrases  as  "fine 
work,"  "important  compositions,"  and  "stirring 
melody."  Furthermore,  his  first  orchestral  sym- 
phony was  "a  work  of  marked  power  and  beauty, 
developing  the  symphonic  form  with  the  original- 
ity of  a  real  master  of  his  art."  The  world  out- 
side of  England  will  be  somewhat  astonished  to 
know  that  Elgar  took  part  in  the  development  of 
the  symphonic  form  and  that  he  was  a  real  master 
of  music.  John  Hatton,  in  a  two-thirds-of-a- 
column  biography,  is  praised,  but  not  without 
reservation.  He  might,  says  the  article,  have 
gained  a  place  of  higher  distinction  among  Eng- 
lish composers  "had  it  not  been  for  his  irresistible 
animal  spirits  and  a  want  of  artistic  reverence." 
He  was,  no  doubt,  without  the  "elegance"  and 
"refinement"  which  seem  to  characterize  so  many 
English  composers. 

But  Charles  Parry  evidently  had  no  shortcom- 
ings to  detract  from  his  colossal  and  heaven- 
kissing  genius.  He  is  given  a  biography  of 
nearly  a  column,  and  it  is  packed  with  praise.  In 
some  of  his  compositions  to  sacred  words  "are 
revealed  the  highest  qualities  of  music."  He  has 
"skill  in  piling  up  climax  after  climax,  and  com- 
mand of  every  choral  resource."  But  this  is  not 
all.  In  some  of  his  works  "he  shows  himself 
master  of  the   orchestra";   and  his   "exquisite" 


MUSIC  129 

chamber  music  and  part-songs  "maintain  the  high 
standard  of  his  greater  works."  Not  even  here 
does  his  genius  expire.  Agamemnon  "is  among 
the  most  impressive  compositions  of  the  kind." 
Furthermore,  The  Frogs  is  a  "striking  example  of 
humor  in  music."  All  this  would  seem  to  be 
enough  glory  for  any  man,  but  Parry  has  not  only 
piled  Pelion  on  Ossa  but  has  scaled  Olympus. 
Outside  his  creative  music,  "his  work  for  music 
was  of  the  greatest  importance" ;  his  Arl  of  Music 
is  a  "splendid  monument  of  musical  literature." 
.  .  .  There  is  even  more  of  this  kind  of  eulogy 
— too  much  of  it  to  quote  here ;  but,  once  you  read 
it,  you  cannot  help  feeling  that  the  famous  tri- 
umvirate, Brahms,  Bach  and  Beethoven,  has  now 
become  the  quartet,  Brahms,  Bach,  Beethoven, 
and  Parry. 

The  vein  of  William  Shield's  melody  "was 
conceived  in  the  purest  and  most  delicate  taste" ; 
and  his  biography  is  half  a  column  in  length. 
Groring  Thomas  is  accorded  two-thirds  of  a 
column;  and  it  is  stated  that  not  only  does  his 
music  reveal  "a  great  talent  for  dramatic  com- 
position and  a  real  gift  of  refined  and  beautiful 
melody,"  but  that  he  was  "personally  the  most 
admirable  of  men."  Michael  Costa,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  evidently  not  personally  admirable, 
for  in  his  half-column  biography  we  read:     "He 


130       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

was  the  great  conductor  of  his  day,  but  both  his 
musical  and  his  human  sympathies  were  some- 
what limited."  (Costa  was  a  Spaniard  by  birth.) 
Samuel  Wesley,  Jr.'s,  anthems  are  "masterly  in 
design,  fine  in  inspiration  and  expression,  and 
noble  in  character."  His  biography  runs  to  half 
a  column.  Even  Wesley,  Sr.,  has  a  third  of  a 
column  biography. 

The  most  amazing  biography  from  the  stand- 
point of  length,  however,  is  that  of  Sir  Arthur 
Sullivan.  It  runs  to  three  and  a  third  columns 
(being  much  longer  than  Haydn's!)  and  is  full 
of  high  praise  of  a  narrowly  provincial  character. 
Thomas  Attwood  receives  a  half-column  biog- 
raphy; Balfe,  the  composer  of  The  Bohemian 
Girl^  receives  nearly  a  column;  Julius  Benedict, 
two-thirds  of  a  column;  William  Jackson,  nearly 
two-thirds  of  a  column;  Mackenzie,  over  three- 
fourths  of  a  column;  John  Stainer,  two-thirds  of 
a  column;  Charles  Stanford,  nearly  a  column; 
Macfarren,  over  half  a  column;  Henry  Hugo 
Pierson,  half  a  column;  John  Hullah,  consider- 
ably over  half  a  column;  William  Crotch,  over 
half  a  column;  Joseph  Barnby,  nearly  half  a 
column;  John  Braham,  two-thirds  of  a  column. 
And  many  others  of  no  greater  importance  receive 
liberal  biographies — for  instance,  Frederic  Clay, 
John  Barnett,  George  Elvey,  John  Goss,  Mac- 


MUSIC  ;i3i 

Cunn,  James  Turle,  and  William  Vincent  Wal- 
lace. 

Bearing  all  this  in  mind,  we  will  now  glance  at 
the  biographies  of  modern  German  composers  in 
the  'Encyclopczdia  Britannic  a.  Johann  Strauss, 
perhaps  the  greatest  of  all  waltz  writers,  is  given 
only  half  a  column,  less  space  than  that  given  to 
John  Field  or  William  Crotch ;  and  the  only  crit- 
icism of  his  music  is  contained  in  the  sentence: 
*'In  Paris  he  associated  himself  with  Musard, 
whose  quadrilles  became  not  much  less  popular 
than  his  own  waltzes;  but  his  greatest  successes 
were  achieved  in  London."  Hummel,  the  most 
brilliant  virtuoso  of  his  day,  whose  concertos  and 
masses  are  still  popular,  receives  less  space  than 
John  Hatton. 

But  what  of  Brahms,  one  of  the  three  great 
composers  of  the  world?  Incredible  as  it  may 
seem,  he  is  given  a  biography  even  shorter  than 
that  of  Sir  Arthur  Sullivan  I  And  Robert  Franz, 
perhaps  the  greatest  lyrical  writer  since  Schubert, 
receives  considerably  less  space  than  William 
Jackson.  Richard  Strauss  is  allotted  only  a 
column  and  two-thirds,  about  equal  space  with 
Charles  Burney,  the  musical  historian,  and  Wil- 
liam Byrd;  and  in  it  we  are  given  little  idea  of  his 
greatness.  In  fact,  the  critic  definitely  says  that 
it  remains  to  be  seen  for  what  Strauss's  name  will 


132      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

live  I  When  one  thinks  of  the  tremendous  in- 
fluence which  Strauss  has  had,  and  of  the  way  in 
which  he  has  altered  the  musical  conceptions  of 
the  world,  one  can  only  wonder,  astounded,  why, 
in  an  encyclopaedia  as  lengthy  as  the  Britannka^ 
he  should  be  dismissed  with  so  inadequate  and 
inept  a  biography. 

After  such  injustice  in  the  case  of  Strauss,  it 
does  not  astonish  one  to  find  that  Max  Bruch,  one 
of  the  most  noteworthy  figures  in  modern  German 
music,  and  Reinecke,  an  important  composer  and 
long  a  professor  at  the  Leipsic  Conservatory, 
should  receive  only  thirty  lines  each.  But  the 
neglect  of  Strauss  hardly  prepared  us  for  the  brief 
and  incomplete  record  which  passes  for  Humper- 
dinck's  biography — a  biography  shorter  than  that 
of  Cramer,  William  Hawes,  Henry  Lazarus,  the 
English  clarinettist,  and  Henry  Smart! 

Mendelssohn,  the  great  English  idol,  receives  a 
biography  out  of  all  proportion  to  his  importance 
— a  biography  twice  as  long  as  that  of  Brahms, 
and  considerably  longer  than  either  Schumann's 
or  Schubert's !  And  it  is  full  of  effulgent  praise 
and  more  than  intimates  that  Mendelssohn's 
counterpoint  was  like  Bach's,  that  his  sonata-form 
resembled  Beethoven's,  and  that  he  invented  a 
new  style  no  less  original  than  Schubert's!  Re- 
membering the  parochial  criterion  by  which  the 


MUSIC  133 

Encyclopsedia's  editors  judge  art,  we  may  per- 
haps account  for  this  amazing  partiality  to  Men- 
delssohn by  the  following  ludicrous  quotation 
from  his  biography :  "His  earnestness  as  a  Chris- 
tian needs  no  stronger  testimony  than  that  af- 
forded by  his  own  delineation  of  the  character  of 
St.  Paul;  but  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  his 
heart  and  life  were  pure  as  those  of  a  little  child." 

Although  Hugo  Wolf's  biography  is  a  column 
and  a  half  in  length,  Konradin  Kreutzer  gets  only 
eighteen  lines;  Nicolai,  who  wrote  The  Merry 
Wives  of  Windsor,  only  ten  lines;  Suppe,  only 
fifteen;  Nessler,  only  twelve;  Franz  Abt,  only 
ten;  Henselt,  only  twenty-six;  Heller,  only 
twenty-two;  Lortzing,  only  twenty;  and  Thal- 
berg,  only  twenty-eight.  In  order  to  realize  how 
much  prejudice,  either  conscious  or  unconscious, 
entered  into  these  biographies,  compare  the 
amounts  of  space  with  those  given  to  the  English 
composers  above  mentioned.  Even  Raff  receives 
a  shorter  biography  than  Mackenzie;  and  von 
Billow's  and  Goldmark's  biographies  are  briefer 
than  Cowen's. 

But  where  the  Encyclop<2dia  Britannica  shows 
its  utter  inadequacy  as  a  guide  to  modern  music  is 
in  the  long  list  of  omission.  For  instance,  there 
is  no  biography  of  Marschner,  whose  Hans  Heil- 
ing  still  survives  in  Germany;  of  Friedrich  Sil- 


134      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

cher,  who  wrote  most  of  the  famous  German 
"folk-songs";  of  Gustav  Mahler,  one  of  the  truly- 
important  symphonists  of  modern  tim.es;  of  the 
Scharwenka  brothers;  or  of  Georg  Alfred  Schu- 
mann— all  sufficiently  important  to  have  a  place 
in  an  encyclopaedia  like  the  Britannica. 

But — what  is  even  more  inexcusable — Max 
Reger,  one  of  the  most  famous  German  composers 
of  the  day,  has  no  biography.  Nor  has  Eugen 
d' Albert,  renowned  for  both  his  chamber  music 
and  operas.  (D' Albert  repudiated  his  English 
antecedents  and  settled  in  Germany.)  Kreisler 
also  is  omitted,  although  Kubelik,  five  years 
Kreisler's  junior,  draws  a  biography.  In  view 
of  the  obvious  contempt  which  the  Encyclopaedia 
Britannica  has  for  America,  it  may  be  noted  in 
this  connection  that  Kreisler's  first  great  success 
was  achieved  in  America,  whereas  Kubelik  made 
his  success  in  London  before  coming  to  this  coun- 
try. 

Among  the  German  and  Austrian  composers 
who  are  without  biographical  mention  in  the 
Britannica,  are  several  of  the  most  significant 
musical  creators  of  modem  times — men  who  are 
world  figures  and  whose  music  is  known  on  every 
concert  stage  in  the  civilized  world.  On  what 
possible  grounds  are  Mahler,  Reger  and  Eugen 
d' Albert  denied  biographies  in  an  encyclopsedia 


MUSIC  135 

which  dares  advertise  itself  as  a  "complete 
library  of  knowledge"  and  as  an  "international 
dictionary  of  biography'"?  And  how  is  it  pos- 
sible for  one  to  get  any  adequate  idea  of  the 
wealth  or  importance  of  modern  German  music 
from  so  biased  and  incomplete  a  source*?  Would 
the  Encyclopsedia's  editors  dare  state  that  such  a 
subject  would  not  appeal  to  "intelligent"  per- 
sons'? And  how  will  the  Encyclopedia's  editors 
explain  away  the  omission  of  Hanslick,  the  most 
influential  musical  critic  that  ever  lived,  when 
liberal  biographies  are  given  to  several  English 
critics? 

Despite  the  incomplete  and  unjust  treatment 
accorded  German  and  Austrian  music  in  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannica^  modern  French  music 
receives  scarcely  better  consideration.  Chopin  is 
given  space  only  equal  to  that  of  Purcell.  Ber- 
lioz and  Gounod,  who  are  allotted  longer  biog- 
raphies than  any  other  modern  French  com- 
posers, receive,  nevertheless,  considerably  less 
space  than  Sir  Arthur  Sullivan.  Saint-Saens  and 
Debussy  receive  less  than  half  the  space  given  to 
Sullivan,  while  Auber  and  Cesar  Franck  are  given 
only  about  equal  space  with  Samuel  Arnold, 
Balfe,  Sterndale  Bennett,  and  Charles  Stanford! 
Massenet  has  less  space  than  William  Thomas 
Best  or  Joseph  Bamby,  and  three-fourths  of  it  is 


136      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

taken  up  with  a  list  of  his  works.  The  remainder 
of  the  biographies  are  proportionately  brief. 
There  is  not  one  of  them  of  such  length  that  you 
cannot  find  several  longer  biographies  of  much 
less  important  English  composers. 

Furthermore,  one  finds  unexplainable  errors 
and  omissions  in  them.  For  instance,  although 
Ernest  Reyer  died  January  15,  1909,  there  is  no 
mention  of  it  in  his  biography;  but  there  is,  how- 
ever, the  statement  that  his  Quarante  Ans  de 
Musique  "was  published  in  1909."  This  care- 
less oversight  in  not  noting  Reyer's  death  while 
at  the  same  time  recording  a  still  later  biographi- 
cal fact  is  without  any  excuse,  especially  as  the 
death  of  Dudley  Buck,  who  died  much  later  than 
Reyer,  is  included.  Furthermore,  the  biography 
omits  stating  that  Reyer  became  Inspector  Gen- 
eral of  the  Paris  Conservatoire  in  1908.  Nor  is 
his  full  name  given,  nor  the  fact  recorded  that 
his  correct  name  was  Rey. 

Again,  although  Theodore  Dubois  relinquished 
his  Directorship  of  the  Conservatory  in  1905,  his 
biography  in  the  Britannica  merely  mentions  that 
he  began  his  Directorship  in  1896,  showing  that 
apparently  no  effort  was  made  to  complete  the 
material.  Still  again,  although  Faure  was  made 
Director  of  the  Conservatory  in  1905,  the  fact  is 
not  set  down  in  his  biography.     And  once  more, 


MUSIC  137 

although  d'Indy  visited  America  in  1905  and 
conducted  the  Boston  Symphony  Orchestra,  the 
fact  is  omitted  from  his  biography.  .  .  .  These 
are  only  a  few  of  the  many  indications  to  be  found 
throughout  the  Britannzca  that  this  encyclopaedia 
is  untrustworthy  and  that  its  editors  have  not,  as 
they  claim,  taken  pains  to  bring  it  up  to  date. 

Among  the  important  French  composers  who 
should  have  biographies,  but  who  are  omitted 
from  the  'Encyclopedia  Britannica^  are  Guilmant, 
perhaps  the  greatest  modem  organist  and  an  im- 
portant classico-modern  composer;  Charpentier, 
who  with  Puccini,  stands  at  the  head  of  the  mod- 
em realistic  opera,  and  whose  Louise  is  to-day  in 
every  standard  operatic  repertoire ;  and  Ravel,  the 
elaborate  harmonist  of  the  moderns. 

Even  greater  inadequacy — an  inadequacy 
which  could  not  be  reconciled  with  an  encyclo- 
paedia one-fourth  the  size  of  the  Britannica — 
exists  in  the  treatment  of  modern  Russian  music. 
So  brief,  so  inept,  so  negligent  is  the  material  on 
this  subject  that,  as  a  reference  book,  the  Britari' 
nica  is  practically  worthless.  The  most  char- 
itable way  of  explaining  this  woeful  deficiency  is 
to  attribute  it  to  wanton  carelessness.  Anton 
Rubinstein,  for  instance,  is  given  a  biography 
about  equal  with  Balfe  and  Charles  Stanford; 
while  his  brother  Nikolaus,  one  of  the  greatest 


138      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

pianists  and  music  teachers  of  his  day,  and  the 
founder  of  the  Conservatorium  of  Music  at  Mos- 
cow, has  no  biography  whatever!  Glinka,  one 
of  the  greatest  of  Russian  composers  and  the 
founder  of  a  new  school  of  music,  is  dismissed 
with  a  biography  no  longer  than  those  of  John 
Braham,  the  English  singer,  John  Hatton,  the 
Liverpool  genius  with  the  "irresistible  animal 
spirits,"  and  William  Jackson;  and  shorter  than 
that  of  Charles  Dibdin,  the  British  song-writer  I 

Tschaikowsky  receives  less  than  two  columns, 
a  little  over  half  the  space  given  to  Sullivan. 
The  criticism  of  his  work  is  brief  and  inadequate, 
and  in  it  there  is  no  mention  of  his  liberal  use  of 
folk-songs  which  form  the  basis  of  so  many  of 
his  important  compositions,  such  as  the  second 
movement  of  his  Fourth  and  the  first  movement 
of  his  First  Symphonies.  Borodin,  another  of 
the  important  musical  leaders  of  modern  Russia, 
has  a  biography  which  is  no  longer  than  that  of 
Frederic  Clay,  the  English  light-opera  writer 
and  whist  expert;  and  which  is  considerably 
shorter  than  the  biography  of  Alfred  Cellier. 
Balakirev,  the  leader  of  the  "New  Russian" 
school,  has  even  a  shorter  biography,  shorter  in 
fact  than  the  biography  of  Henry  Hugo  Pierson, 
the  weak  English  oratorio  writer. 

The  biography  of  Moussorgsky — a  composer 


MUSIC  139 

whose  importance  needs  no  indication  here — is 
only  fifteen  lines  in  length,  shorter  even  than  Wil- 
liam Hawes's,  Henry  Lazarus's,  George  Elvey's, 
or  Henry  Smart's!  And  yet  Moussorgsky  was 
"one  of  the  finest  creative  composers  in  the  ranks 
of  the  modem  Russian  school."  Rimsky-Korsa- 
kov,  another  of  the  famous  modern  Russians, 
whose  work  has  long  been  familiar  both  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  draws  less  space  than  Michael 
Costa,  the  English  conductor  of  Spanish  origin, 
or  than  Joseph  Barnby,  the  English  composer- 
conductor  of  Sweet  and  Low  fame. 

Glazunov  is  given  a  biography  only  equal  in 
length  to  that  of  John  Goss,  the  unimportant 
English  writer  of  church  music.  And  although 
the  biography  tells  us  that  he  became  Professor  of 
the  St.  Petersburg  Conservatory  in  1900,  it  fails 
to  mention  that  he  was  made  Director  in  1908 — 
a  bit  of  inexcusable  carelessness  which,  though 
of  no  great  importance,  reveals  the  slip-shod  in- 
completeness of  the  Britannica's  Eleventh  Edi- 
tion. Furthermore,  many  important  works  of 
Glazunov  are  not  noted  at  all. 

Here  ends  the  Encyclopedia's  record  of  modern 
Russian  composers!  Cesar  Cui,  one  of  the  very 
important  modem  Russians,  has  no  biography 
whatever  in  this  great  English  cultural  work,  al- 
though we  find  liberal  accounts  of  such  British 


140      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

composers  as  Turle,  Walmisley,  Potter,  Richards 
(whose  one  bid  to  fame  is  having  written  God 
Bless  the  Prince  of  Wales)  and  George  Alexander 
Lee,  the  song-writer  whose  great  popular  success 
was  Come  Where  the  Aspens  Quiver.  Nor  will 
you  find  any  biographical  information  of  Arensky, 
another  of  the  leading  Russian  composers  of  the 
new  school ;  nor  of  Taneiev  or  Grechaninov — ^both 
of  whom  have  acquired  national  and  international 
fame.  Even  Scriabine,  a  significant  Russian  com- 
poser who  has  exploited  new  theories  of  scales 
and  harmonies  of  far-reaching  influence,  is  not  con- 
sidered of  sufficient  importance  to  be  given  a  place 
(along  with  insignificant  Englishmen  like  Lacy 
and  Smart)  in  the  Encyclopczdia  Britannica, 

The  most  astonishing  omission,  however,  is  that 
of  Rachmaninov.  Next  to  omitting  Cesar  Cui, 
the  complete  ignoring  of  so  important  and  uni- 
versally accepted  a  composer  as  Rachmaninov, 
whose  symphonic  poem.  The  Island  of  the  Dead^ 
is  one  of  the  greatest  Russian  works  since  Tschai- 
kowsky,  is  the  most  indefensible  of  all.  On  what 
possible  grounds  can  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica 
defend  its  extravagant  claims  to  completeness 
when  the  name  of  so  significant  and  well-known 
a  composer  as  Rachmaninov  does  not  appear  in 
the  entire  twenty-nine  volumes'? 

In  the  list  of  the  important  modern  Italian 


MUSIC  .141 

musicians  included  in  the  Britannka  one  will  seek 
in  vain  for  information  of  Busoni,  who  has  not 
only  written  much  fine  instrumental  music,  but 
who  is  held  by  many  to  be  the  greatest  living  vir- 
tuoso of  the  piano;  or  of  Wolf- Ferrari,  one  of  the 
important  leaders  of  the  new  Italian  school.  And 
though  Tosti,  whose  name  is  also  omitted,  is  of 
slight  significance,  he  is  of  far  greater  popular 
importance  than  several  English  song-writers  who 
are  accorded  biographies. 

Even  Puccini,  who  has  revolutionized  the  mod- 
em opera  and  who  stands  at  the  head  of  living 
operatic  composers,  is  given  only  eleven  lines  of 
biography,  less  space  than  is  given  to  George  Alex- 
ander Lee  or  John  Barnett,  and  only  equal  space 
with  Lacy,  the  Irish  actor  with  musical  inclina- 
tions, and  Walmisley,  the  anthem  writer  and 
organist  at  Trinity  College.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  no  biography  of  eleven  lines,  even  if  written 
in  shorthand,  would  be  adequate  as  a  source  of  in- 
formation for  such  a  composer  as  Puccini.  The 
fact  that  he  visited  America  in  1907  is  not  even 
mentioned,  and  although  at  that  time  he  selected 
his  theme  for  The  Girl  of  the  Golden  West  and 
began  work  on  it  in  1908,  you  will  have  to  go  to 
some  other  work  more  "supreme"  than  the  En- 
cyclopczdia  Britannica  for  this  knowledge. 

Leoncavallo's  biography  is  of  the  same  brevity 


142       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

as  Puccini's;  and  the  last  work  of  his  that  is  men- 
tioned is  dated  1904.  His  opera,  Songe  d'Une 
Nu^t  d'Etc,  his  symphonic  poem,  Serafihi,  and  his 
ballet,  La  Vita  d'Una  Marionetta — though  all 
completed  before  1908 — are  not  recorded  in  this 
revised  and  up-to-date  libran,-  of  culture.  Mas- 
cagni,  apparently,  is  something  of  a  favorite  with 
the  editors  of  the  Britannica^  for  his  biography 
runs  to  twenty-three  lines,  nearly  as  long  as  that 
of  the  English  operatic  composer,  William  \'in- 
cent  Wallace,  and  of  Alfred  Cellier,  the  infra- 
Stillivan.  But  even  with  this  great  partiality 
shown  him  there  is  no  record  of  his  return  from 
America  to  Italy  in  1903  or  of  the  honor  of  Com- 
mander of  the  Crown  of  Italy  which  was  con- 
ferred upon  him. 

Of  important  Northern  composers  there  are  not 
many,  but  the  Britannica  has  succeeded  in  mini- 
mizing even  their  small  importance.  Gade  has 
a  biography  only  as  long  as  Pierson's;  and 
Kjerulf,  who  did  so  much  for  Norwegian  music,  is 
given  less  space  than  William  Hawes,  with  no 
critical  indication  of  his  importance.  Even  Grieg 
receives  but  a  little  more  space  than  Charles  Stan- 
ford or  Stemdale  Bennett!  Nordraak,  who  was 
Grieg's  chief  co-worker  in  the  development  of  a 
national  school  of  music,  has  no  biography  what- 
ever.    Nor  has  Sinding,  whose  fine  orchestral  and 


MUSIC  143 

chamber  music  is  heard  everywhere.  Not  even 
Sibelius,  whose  very  notable  compositions  brought 
Finland  into  musical  prominence,  is  considered 
worthy  of  biographical  mention. 

But  the  most  astonishing  omission  is  that  of 
Buxtehude,  one  of  the  great  and  important  figures 
in  the  early  development  of  music.  Not  only  was 
he  the  greatest  organist  of  his  age,  but  he  was  a 
great  teacher  as  well.  He  made  Liibeck  famous 
for  its  music,  and  established  the  "Abendmusiken" 
which  Bach  walked  fifty  miles  to  hear.  To  the 
Britannicd's  editor,  however,  he  is  of  less  im- 
portance than  Henry  Smart,  the  English  or- 
ganist I 

In  Dvorak's  biography  we  learn  that  English 
sympathy  was  entirely  won  by  the  Stabat  Mater; 
but  no  special  mention  is  made  of  his  famous 
E-minor  (American)  Symphony.  Smetana,  the 
first  great  Bohemian  musician,  receives  less  space 
than  Henry  Bishop,  who  is  remembered  princi- 
pally as  the  composer  of  Home,  Szveet  Home. 

But  when  we  pass  over  into  Poland  we  find  in- 
adequacy and  omissions  of  even  graver  character. 
Moszkowski  receives  just  eight  lines  of  biography, 
the  same  amount  that  is  given  to  God-Bless-ike' 
Prince-of -Wales  Richards.  Paderewski  is  ac- 
corded equal  space  with  the  English  pianist,  Cipri- 
ani Potter;  and  no  mention  is  made  of  his  famous 


144      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

$10,000  fund  for  the  best  American  compositions. 
This  is  a  characteristic  omission,  however,  for,  as 
I  have  pointed  out  before,  a  composer's  activities 
in  America  are  apparently  considered  too  trivial  to 
mention,  whereas,  if  it  is  at  all  possible  to  connect 
England,  even  in  a  remote  and  far-fetched  way, 
with  the  genius  of  the  world,  it  is  done.  Josef 
Hofmann,  the  other  noted  Polish  pianist,  is  too 
insignificant  to  be  given  even  passing  mention  in 
the  Britannica.  But  such  an  inclusion  could 
hardly  be  expected  of  a  reference  work  which 
contains  no  biography  of  Leschetizky,  the  greatest 
and  most  famous  piano  teacher  the  world  has  ever 
known. 

We  come  now  to  the  most  prejudiced  and  in- 
excusably inadequate  musical  section  in  the  whole 
Britannica — namely,  to  American  composers. 
Again  we  find  that  narrow  patronage,  that  provin- 
cial condescension  and  that  contemptuous  neglect 
which  so  conspicuously  characterize  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica's  treatment  of  all  American  in- 
stitutions and  culture.  We  have  already  beheld 
how  this  neglect  and  contempt  have  worked 
against  our  painters,  our  novelists,  our  poets  and 
our  dramatists;  we  have  seen  what  rank  injustice 
has  been  dealt  our  artists  and  writers;  we  have 
reviewed  the  record  of  omissions  contained  in 
this  Encyclopaedia's  account  of  our  intellectual 


MUSIC  14? 

activities.  But  in  no  other  instance  has  British 
scorn  allowed  itself  so  extreme  and  indefensible 
an  expression  as  in  the  peremptory  manner  in 
which  our  musical  composers  are  dismissed.  The 
negligence  with  which  American  musical  com- 
positions and  composers  are  reviewed  is  greater 
than  in  the  case  of  any  other  nation. 

As  I  have  said  before,  if  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica  had  been  compiled  to  sell  only  in 
suburban  England,  we  would  have  no  complaint 
against  the  petty  contempt  shown  our  artists ;  but 
when  an  encyclopaedia  is  put  together  largely  for 
the  purpose  of  American  distribution,  the  sweep- 
ing neglect  of  our  native  creative  effort  resolves 
itself  into  an  insult  which  every  American  should 
hotly  resent.  And  especially  should  such  neglect 
be  resented  when  the  advertising  campaign  with 
which  the  Britannica  was  foisted  upon  the  public 
claimed  for  that  work  an  exalted  supremacy  as  a 
library  of  international  education,  and  definitely 
stated  that  it  contained  an  adequate  discussion  of 
every  subject  which  would  appeal  to  intelligent 
persons.  As  I  write  this  the  Britannica  adver- 
tises itself  as  containing  "an  exhaustive  account 
of  all  human  achievement."  But  I  think  I  have 
shown  with  pretty  fair  conclusiveness  that  it  does 
not  contain  anywhere  near  an  exhaustive  account 
of  American  achievement ;  and  yet  I  doubt  if  even 


146      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

an  Englishman  would  deny  that  we  were  "hu- 
man." 

Let  us  see  how  "exhaustive"  the  Britannica  is 
in  its  record  of  American  musical  achievement. 
To  begin  with,  there  are  just  thirty-seven  lines  in 
the  article  on  American  composers;  and  for  our 
other  information  we  must  depend  on  the  bio- 
graphies. But  what  do  we  find?  Dudley  Buck 
is  given  an  incomplete  biography  of  fourteen  lines; 
and  MacDowell  draws  thirty  lines  of  inadequate 
data.  Gottschalk,  the  most  celebrated  of  Ameri- 
can piano  virtuosi,  who  toured  Europe  with  great 
success  and  wrote  much  music  which  survives  even 
to-day,  is  surely  of  enough  historical  importance 
to  be  given  a  biography;  but  his  name  does  not  so 
much  as  appear  in  the  Britani2ica.  John  Knowles 
Paine  has  no  biography;  nor  has  William  Mason; 
nor  Arthur  Foote;  nor  Chadwick;  nor  Edgar  Still- 
man  Kelly;  nor  Ethelbert  Nevin;  nor  Charles 
Loeffler;  nor  Mrs.  Beach;  nor  Henry  K.  Hadley; 
nor  Cadman;  nor  Horatio  Parker;  nor  Frederick 
Converse. 

To  be  sure,  these  composers  do  not  rank  among 
the  great  world  figures;  but  they  do  stand  for  the 
highest  achievement  in  American  music,  and  it  is 
quite  probable  that  many  "intelligent"  Americans 
would  be  interested  in  knowing  about  them.  In 
fact,  from  the  standpoint  of  intelligent  interest. 


MUSIC  147 

they  are  of  far  more  importance  than  many  lesser 
English  composers  who  are  given  biographies. 
And  although  Sousa  has  had  the  greatest  popular 
success  of  any  composer  since  Johann  Strauss,  you 
will  hunt  the  Britannica  through  in  vain  for  even 
so  much  as  a  mention  of  him.  And  while  I  do  not 
demand  the  inclusion  of  Victor  Herbert,  never- 
theless if  Alfred  Cellier  is  given  a  place,  Herbert, 
who  is  Cellier's  superior  in  the  same  field,  should 
not  be  discriminated  against  simply  because  he  is 
not  an  Englishman. 

It  will  be  seen  that  there  is  practically  no  record 
whatever  of  the  makers  of  American  music;  and 
while,  to  the  world  at  large,  our  musical  accom- 
plishments may  not  be  of  vital  importance,  yet  to 
Americans  themselves — even  "intelligent"  Amer- 
icans (if  the  English  will  admit  that  such  an 
adjective  may  occasionally  be  applied  to  us) — 
they  are  not  only  of  importance  but  of  signifi- 
cance. It  is  not  as  if  second-rate  and  greatly  in- 
ferior composers  of  Great  Britain  were  omitted 
also;  but  when  Ethelbert  Nevin  is  given  no  bio- 
graphy while  many  lesser  British  composers  are  not 
only  given  biographies  but  praised  as  well,  Amer- 
icans have  a  complaint  which  the  Britannica^ s  ex- 
ploiters (who  chummily  advertise  themselves  as 
"we  Americans")  will  find  it  difficult  to  meet. 


VIII 

SCIENCE 

In  the  field  of  medicine  and  biology  the  Encyclo' 
padia  Britannica  reveals  so  narrow  and  obvious 
a  partisanship  that  there  has  already  been  no  lit- 
tle resentment  on  the  part  of  American  scientists. 
This  country  is  surpassed  by  none  in  biological 
chemistry;  and  our  fame  in  surgery  and  medical 
experimentation  is  world-wide.  Among  the 
ranks  of  our  scientists  stand  men  of  such  great 
importance  and  high  achievement  that  no  ad- 
equate history  of  biology  or  medicine  could  be 
written  without  giving  vital  consideration  to 
them.  Yet  the  Britannica  fails  almost  com- 
pletely in  revealing  their  significance.  Many  of 
our  great  experimenters — men  who  have  made 
important  original  contributions  to  science  and 
who  have  pushed  forward  the  boundaries  of  hu- 
man knowledge — receive  no  mention  whatever; 
and  many  of  our  surgeons  and  physicians  whose 
researches  have  marked  epochs  in  the  history  of 
medicine  meet  with  a  similar  fate.     On  the  other 

hand  you  will  find  scores  of  biographies  of  com- 

148 


SCIENCE  149 

paratively  little  known  and  unimportant  English 
scientists,  some  of  whom  have  contributed  noth- 
ing to  medical  and  biological  advancement. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  go  into  any  great  de- 
tail in  this  matter.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  make 
a  complete  list  of  the  glaring  omissions  of  our 
scientists  or  to  set  down  anywhere  near  all  of  the 
lesser  British  scientists  who  are  discussed  liberally 
and  con  amore  in  the  Britannica.  Such  a  record 
were  unnecessary.  But  I  shall  indicate  a  suffi- 
cient number  of  discrepancies  between  the  treat- 
ment of  American  scientists  and  the  treatment  of 
English  scientists,  to  reveal  the  utter  inadequacy 
of  the  Britannica  as  a  guide  to  the  history  and 
development  of  our  science.  If  America  did  not 
stand  so  high  in  this  field  the  Encyclopedia's  edi- 
tors would  have  some  basis  on  which  to  explain 
away  their  wanton  discrimination  against  our 
scientific  activities.  But  when,  as  I  say,  America 
stands  foremost  among  the  nations  of  the  world 
in  biological  chemistry  and  also  holds  high  rank 
in  surgery  and  medicine,  there  can  be  no  excuse 
for  such  wilful  neglect,  especially  as  minor  British 
scientists  are  accorded  liberal  space  and  generous 
consideration. 

First  we  shall  set  down  those  three  earlier  path- 
finders in  American  medicine  whose  names  do  not 
so  much  as  appear  in  the  Britannica^ s  Index: — 


150      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

John  Morgan,  who  in  1765,  published  his  Dis- 
course Upon  the  Institution  of  Medical  Schools 
in  America,  thus  becoming  the  father  of  medical 
education  in  the  United  States;  William  Shippen, 
Jr.,  who  aided  John  Morgan  in  founding  our  first 
medical  school,  the  medical  department  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  and  gave  the  first 
public  lectures  in  obstetrics  in  this  country,  and 
who  may  be  regarded  as  the  father  of  American 
obstetrics;  and  Thomas  Cadwalader,  the  first 
Philadelphian  (at  this  time  Philadelphia  was  the 
medical  center  of  America)  to  teach  anatomy  by 
dissections,  and  the  author  of  one  of  the  best 
pamphlets  on  lead  poisoning. 

Among  the  somewhat  later  important  American 
medical  scientists  who  are  denied  any  mention  in 
the  Britannica  are:  John  Conrad  Otto,  the  first 
who  described  hemophilia  (an  abnormal  tendency 
to  bleeding) ;  James  Jackson,  author  of  one  of 
the  first  accounts  of  alcoholic  neuritis ;  James  Jack- 
son, Jr.,  who  left  his  mark  in  physical  diagnosis; 
Elisha  North,  who  as  early  as  1811  advocated 
the  use  of  the  clinical  thermometer  in  his  original 
description  of  cerebrospinal  meningitis  (the  first 
book  on  the  subject) ;  John  Ware,  who  wrote  one 
of  the  chief  accounts  of  delirium  tremens;  Jacob 
Bigelow,  one  of  the  very  great  names  in  American 
medicine,  whose  essay.  On  Self-Limited  Diseases, 


SCIENCE  151 

according  to  Holmes,  "did  more  than  any  other 
work  or  essay  in  our  language  to  rescue  the  prac- 
tice of  medicine  from  the  slavery  to  the  drugging 
system  which  was  a  part  of  the  inheritance  of  the 
profession";  W.  W.  Gerhard,  who  distinguished 
between  typhoid  and  typhus;  Daniel  Drake, 
known  as  the  greatest  physician  of  the  West,  who 
as  the  result  of  thirty  years  of  labor  wrote  the 
masterpiece.  Diseases  of  the  Interior  Valley  of 
North  America;  Caspar  Wistar,  who  wrote  the 
first  American  treatise  on  anatomy;  and  William 
Edmonds  Horner,  who  discovered  the  tensor  tarsi 
muscle,  known  as  Horner's  muscle.  .  .  .  Not 
only  are  these  men  not  accorded  biographies  in 
the  "universal"  and  "complete"  Encyclopcsdia 
Britannica,  but  their  names  do  not  appear  I 

The  father  of  American  surgery  was  Philip 
Syng  Physick,  who  invented  the  tonsillotome  and 
introduced  various  surgical  operations;  but  you 
must  look  elsewhere  than  in  the  Britannica  for  so 
much  as  a  mention  of  him.  And  although  the  his- 
tory of  American  surgery  is  especially  glorious 
and  includes  such  great  names  as:  the  Warrens; 
Wright  Post;  J.  C.  Nott,  who  excised  the  coccyx 
and  was  the  first  who  suggested  the  mosquito 
theory  of  yellow  fever;  Henry  J.  Bigelow,  the 
first  to  describe  the  Y-ligament;  Samuel  David 
Gross,  one  of  the  chief  surgeons  of  the  nineteenth 


ii:2       MISINFORiMING  A  NATION 

century;  Nicholas  Senn,  one  of  the  masters  of 
modern  surgery;  Harvey  Gushing,  perhaps  the 
greatest  brain  surgeon  in  the  world  to-day; 
George  Crile,  whose  revolutionary  work  in  surgi- 
cal shock  was  made  long  before  the  Britannka 
went  to  press;  and  William  S.  Halsted,  among  the 
greatest  surgeons  of  the  world, — as  I  have  said,  al- 
though America  has  produced  these  important 
men,  the  Encyclopdsdia  Britannica  ignores  the  fact 
entirely,  and  does  not  so  much  as  record  one  of 
their  names ! 

Were  all  the  rest  of  American  medical  scientists 
given  liberal  consideration  in  the  Britannica,  it 
would  not  compensate  for  the  above  omissions. 
But  these  omissions  are  by  no  means  all :  they  are 
merely  the  beginning.  The  chief  names  in  mod- 
ern operative  gynecology  are  American.  But  of 
the  nine  men  who  are  the  leaders  in  this  field,  only 
one  (Emmet)  has  a  biography,  and  only  one 
(McDowell)  receives  casual  mention.  Marion 
Sims  who  invented  his  speculum  and  introduced 
the  operation  for  vesicovaginal  fistula,  Nathan 
Bozeman,  J.  C.  Nott  (previously  mentioned), 
Theodore  Gaillard  Thomas,  Robert  Battey,  E. 
C.  Dudley,  and  Howard  A.  Kelly  do  not  exist  for 
the  Britannica. 

Furthermore,  of  the  four  chief  pioneers  in  an- 
aesthesia— the  practical  discovery  and  use  of  which 


SCIENCE  1 93 

was  an  American  achievement — only  two  are 
mentioned.  The  other  two — C.  W.  Long,  of 
Georgia,  and  the  chemist,  Charles  T.  Jackson — 
are  apparently  unknown  to  the  British  editors  of 
this  encyclopsedia.  And  although  in  the  history 
of  pediatrics  there  is  no  more  memorable  name 
than  that  of  Joseph  O'Dwyer,  of  Ohio,  whose 
work  in  intubation  has  saved  countless  numbers 
of  infants,  you  will  fail  to  find  any  reference  to 
him  in  this  ^'unbiased"  English  reference  work. 

One  must  not  imagine  that  even  here  ends  the 
Britannica^s  almost  unbelievable  injustice  to 
American  scientists.  John  J.  Abel  is  not  men- 
tioned either,  yet  Professor  Abel  is  among  the 
greatest  pharmacologists  of  the  world.  His  re- 
searches in  animal  tissues  and  fluids  have  definitely 
set  forward  the  science  of  medicine;  and  it  was 
Abel  who,  besides  his  great  work  with  the  artifi- 
cial kidney,  first  discovered  the  uses  of  epinephrin. 
R.  G.  Harrison,  one  of  the  greatest  biologists  of 
history,  whose  researches  in  the  growth  of  tissue 
were  epoch-making,  and  on  whose  investigations 
other  scientists  also  have  made  international  repu- 
tations, is  omitted  entirely  from  the  Britannica. 
S.  J.  Meltzer,  the  physiologist,  who  has  been  the 
head  of  the  department  of  physiology  and  phar- 
macology at  Rockefeller  Institute  since  1906,  is 
not  in  the  Britannica.     T.  H.  Morgan,  the  zo- 


154      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ologist,  whose  many  books  on  the  subject  have 
long  been  standard  works,  is  without  a  biography. 
E.  B.  Wilson,  one  of  the  great  pathfinders  in 
zoology  and  a  man  who  stands  in  the  front  rank 
of  that  science,  is  also  without  a  biography.  And 
Abraham  Jacobi,  who  is  the  father  of  pediatrics  in 
America,  is  not  mentioned. 

The  list  of  wanton  omissions  is  not  yet  com- 
plete! C.  S.  Minot,  the  great  American  embry- 
ologist,  is  ignored.  Theobald  Smith,  the  pathol- 
ogist, is  also  thought  unworthy  of  note.  And 
among  those  renowned  American  scientists  who, 
though  mentioned,  failed  to  impress  the  Encyclo- 
paedia's English  editor  sufficiently  to  be  given 
biographies  are :  John  Kerasley  Mitchell,  who  was 
the  first  to  describe  certain  neurological  conditions, 
and  was  one  of  the  advocates  of  the  germ  theory 
of  disease  before  bacteriology;  William  Beau- 
mont, the  first  to  study  digestion  in  situ;  Jacques 
Loeb,  whose  works  on  heliotropism,  morphology, 
psychology,  etc.,  have  placed  him  among  the 
world's  foremost  imaginative  researchers;  H.  S. 
Jennings,  another  great  American  biologist;  W. 
H.  Welch,  one  of  the  greatest  of  modem  patho- 
logists and  bacteriologists;  and  Simon  Flexner, 
whose  work  is  too  well  known  to  the  world  to 
need  any  description  here.  These  men  unques- 
tionably   deserve    biographies    in    any    encyclo- 


SCIENCE  15:^ 

paedia  which  makes  even  a  slight  pretence  of  com- 
pleteness, and  to  have  omitted  them  from  the 
Britannica  was  an  indefensible  oversight — or 
worse. 

The  editors  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica 
cannot  explain  away  these  amazing  omissions  on 
the  ground  that  the  men  mentioned  are  not  of 
sufficient  importance  to  have  come  within  the 
range  of  their  consideration;  for,  when  we  look 
down  the  list  of  British  medical  scientists  who  are 
given  biographies,  we  can  find  at  least  a  score  of 
far  less  important  ones.  For  instance,  Elizabeth 
G.  Anderson,  whose  claim  to  glory  lies  in  her  ad- 
vocacy of  admitting  women  into  the  medical  pro- 
fession, is  given  considerably  over  half  a  column. 
Gilbert  Blane,  the  introducer  of  lime-juice  into 
the  English  navy,  also  has  a  biography.  So  has 
Richard  Brocklesby,  an  eighteenth-century  army 
physician;  and  Andrew  Clark,  a  fashionable  Lon- 
don practitioner;  and  T.  B.  Curling;  and  John 
EUiotson,  the  English  mesmerist;  and  Joseph 
Fayrer,  known  chiefly  for  his  studies  in  the  poison- 
ous snakes  of  India;  and  J.  C.  Forster;  and  James 
Clark,  an  army  surgeon  and  physician  in  ordinary 
to  Queen  Victoria;  and  P.  G.  Hewett,  another 
surgeon  to  Queen  Victoria;  and  many  others  of 
no  more  prominence  or  importance. 

In  order  to  realize  the  astounding  lengths  of  in- 


156       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

justice  to  which  the  Britannica  has  gone  in  its 
petty  neglect  of  America,  compare  these  English 
names  which  are  given  detailed  biographical  con- 
sideration, with  the  American  names  which  are 
left  out.  The  editors  of  this  encyclopaedia  must 
either  plead  guilty  to  the  most  flagrant  kind  of 
prejudicial  discrimination  against  this  country,  or 
else  confess  to  an  abysmal  ignorance  of  the  his- 
tory and  achievements  of  modern  science. 

It  might  be  well  to  note  here  that  Luther  Bur- 
bank's  name  is  mentioned  only  once  in  the  Britan- 
nica^  under  Santa  Rosa,  the  comment  being  that 
Santa  Rosa  was  his  home.  Not  to  have  given 
Burbank  a  biography  containing  an  account  of  his 
important  work  is  nothing  short  of  preposterous. 
Is  it  possible  that  Americans  are  not  supposed  to 
be  interested  in  this  great  scientist?  And  are  we 
to  assume  that  Marianne  North,  the  English  nat- 
uralist and  flower  painter — who  is  given  a  de- 
tailed biography — is  of  more  importance  than 
Burbank?  The  list  of  English  naturalists  and 
botanists  who  receive  biographies  in  the  Britannica 
includes  such  names  as  William  Alton,  Charles 
Alston,  James  Anderson,  W.  J.  Broderip,  and 
Robert  Fortune ;  and  yet  there  is  no  biography  or 
even  discussion  of  Luther  Burbank,  the  Ameri- 
can! 

Thus  far  in  this  chapter  I  have  called  attention 


SCIENCE  1^7 

only  to  the  neglect  of  American  scientists.  It 
must  not  be  implied,  however,  that  America  alone 
suffers  from  the  Britannica's  insular  prejudice. 
No  nation,  save  England,  is  treated  with  that 
justice  and  comprehensiveness  upon  which  the 
Encyclopaedia's  advertising  has  so  constantly  in- 
sisted. For  instance,  although  Jonathan  Hutch- 
inson, the  English  authority  on  syphilis,  receives 
(and  rightly  so)  nearly  half  a  column  biography, 
Ehrlich,  the  world's  truly  great  figure  in  that 
field,  is  not  considered  of  sufficient  importance 
to  be  given  biographical  mention.  It  is  true  that 
Ehrlich's  salvarsan  did  not  become  known  until 
1910,  but  he  had  done  much  immortal  work  be- 
fore then.  Even  Metchnikoff,  surely  one  of  the 
world's  greatest  modern  scientists,  has  no  biog- 
raphy! And  although  British  biologists  of  even 
minor  importance  receive  biographical  considera- 
tion, Lyonet,  the  Hollander,  who  did  the  first 
structural  work  after  Swammerdam,  is  without  a 
biography. 

Nor  are  there  biographies  of  Franz  Leydig, 
through  whose  extensive  investigations  all  struct- 
ural studies  upon  insects  assumed  a  new  aspect; 
Rudolph  Leuckart,  another  conspicuous  figure  in 
zoological  progress;  Meckel,  who  stands  at  the 
beginning  of  the  school  of  comparative  anatomy 
in  Germany;  Rathke,  who  made  a  significant  ad- 


158      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

vance  in  comparative  anatomy;  Ramon  y  Cajal, 
whose  histological  research  is  of  world-wide  re- 
nown; Kowalevsky,  whose  work  in  embryology 
had  enormous  influence  on  all  subsequent  investi- 
gations; Wilhelm  His,  whose  embryological  in- 
vestigations, especially  in  the  development  of  the 
nervous  system  and  the  origin  of  nerve  fibres,  are 
of  very  marked  importance;  Dujardin,  the  dis- 
coverer of  sarcode;  Lacaze-Duthiers,  one  of 
France's  foremost  zoological  researchers;  and 
Pouchet,  who  created  a  sensation  with  his  experi- 
mentations in  spontaneous  generation. 

Even  suppose  the  Britannica's  editor  should 
argue  that  the  foregoing  biologists  are  not  of  the 
very  highest  significance  and  therefore  are  not 
deserving  of  separate  biographies,  how  then  can 
he  explain  the  fact  that  such  British  biologists  as 
Alfred  Newton,  William  Yarrell,  John  G.  Wood, 
G.  J.  Allman,  F.  T.  Buckland,  and  T.  S.  Cobbold, 
are  given  individual  biographies  with  a  detailed 
discussion  of  their  work?  What  becomes  of  that 
universality  of  outlook  on  which  he  so  prides  him- 
self? Or  does  he  consider  Great  Britain  as  the 
universe? 

As  I  have  said,  the  foregoing  notes  do  not  aim 
at  being  exhaustive.  To  set  down,  even  from  an 
American  point  of  view,  a  complete  record  of  the 
inadequacies  which  are  to  be  found  in  the  Britan- 


SCIENCE  1S9 

nica's  account  of  modern  science  would  require 
much  more  space  than  I  can  devote  to  it  here.  I 
have  tried  merely  to  indicate,  by  a  few  names  and 
a  few  comparisons,  the  insular  nature  of  this  En- 
cyclopaedia's expositions,  and  thereby  to  call  at- 
tention to  the  very  obvious  fact  that  the  Britau' 
nica  is  not  "an  international  dictionary  of  bio- 
graphy," but  a  prejudiced  work  in  which  English 
endeavor,  through  undue  emphasis  and  exaggera- 
tion, is  given  the  first  consideration.  Should  this 
Encyclopaedia  be  depended  upon  for  information, 
one  would  get  but  the  meagrest  idea  of  the  splen- 
did advances  which  America  has  made  in  modem 
science.  And,  although  I  have  here  touched  only 
on  medicine  and  biology,  the  same  narrow  and 
provincial  British  viewpoint  can  be  found  in  the 
B  ri  tannic  a' s  treatment  of  the  other  sciences  as 
well. 


IX 

INVENTIONS,    PHOTOGRAPHY,    /ESTHETICS 

In  the  matter  of  American  inventions  the  Encyclo' 
padia  Britannica  would  appear  to  have  said  as  lit- 
tle as  possible,  and  to  have  minimized  our  im- 
portance in  that  field  as  much  as  it  dared.  And 
yet  American  inventors,  to  quote  H.  Addington 
Bruce,  "have  not  simply  astonished  mankind; 
they  have  enhanced  the  prestige,  power,  and  pros- 
perity of  their  country."  The  Britannica^s  edi- 
tors apparently  do  not  agree  with  this;  and  when 
we  think  of  the  wonderful  romance  of  American 
inventions,  and  the  possibilities  in  the  subject  for 
full  and  interesting  writing,  and  then  read  the 
brief,  and  not  infrequently  disdainful,  accounts 
that  are  presented,  we  are  conscious  at  once  not 
only  of  an  inadequacy  in  the  matter  of  facts,  but 
of  a  niggardliness  of  spirit. 

Let  us  regard  the  Encyclopaedia's  treatment  of 
steam  navigation.  Under  Steamboat  we  read: 
"The  first  practical  steamboat  was  the  tug  'Char- 
lotte   Dundas,'    built    by    William    Symington 

(Scotch),  and  tried  in  the  Forth  and  Clyde  Canal 

i6o 


INVENTIONS  161 

in  1802.  .  .  .  The  trial  was  successful,  but  steam 
towing  was  abandoned  for  fear  of  injuring  the 
banks  of  the  canal.  Ten  years  later  Henry  Bell 
built  the  'Comet,'  with  side-paddle  wheels,  which 
ran  as  a  passenger  steamer  on  the  Clyde;  but  an 
earlier  inventor  to  follow  up  Symington's  success 
was  the  American,  Robert  Fulton.  .  .  ." 

This  practically  sums  up  the  history  of  that 
notable  achievement.  Note  the  method  of  presen- 
tation, with  the  mention  of  Fulton  as  a  kind  of 
afterthought.  While  the  data  may  technically 
come  within  the  truth,  the  impression  given  is  a 
false  one,  or  at  least  a  British  one.  Even  Eng- 
lish authorities  admit  that  Fulton  established  de- 
finitely the  value  of  the  steamboat  as  a  medium 
for  passenger  and  freight  traffic;  but  here  the 
credit,  through  implication,  is  given  to  Symington 
and  Bell.  And  yet,  if  Symington  is  to  be  given 
so  much  credit  for  pioneer  work,  why  are  not  Wil- 
liam Henry,  of  Pennsylvania,  John  Stevens,  of 
New  Jersey,  Nathan  Read,  of  Massachusetts,  and 
John  Fitch,  of  Connecticut,  mentioned  also? 
Surely  each  of  these  other  Americans  was  im- 
portant in  the  development  of  the  idea  of  steam 
as  motive  power  in  water. 

Eli  Whitney  receives  a  biography  of  only  two- 
thirds  of  a  column;  Morse,  less  than  a  column; 
and  Elias  Howe,  only  a  little  over  half  a  column. 


i62       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Even  Thomas  Edison  receives  only  thirty-three 
lines  of  biography — a  mere  statement  of  facts. 
Such  a  biography  is  an  obvious  injustice;  and  the 
American  buyers  of  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica 
have  just  cause  for  complaining  against  such  in- 
adequacy. Edison  admittedly  is  a  towering  fig- 
ure in  modern  science,  and  an  encyclopaedia  the 
size  of  the  Britannica  should  have  a  full  and  in- 
teresting account  of  his  life,  especially  since  ob- 
scure English  scientists  are  accorded  far  more 
liberal  biographies. 

Alexander  Graham  Bell,  however,  receives  the 
scantiest  biography  of  all.  It  runs  to  just  fifteen 
lines  I  And  the  name  of  Daniel  Drawbaugh  is 
not  mentioned.  He  and  Bell  filed  their  papers 
for  a  telephone  on  the  same  day;  and  it  was  only 
after  eight  years'  litigation  that  the  Supreme 
Court  decided  in  Bell's  favor — four  judges  favor- 
ing him  and  three  favoring  Drawbaugh.  No 
reference  is  made  of  this  interesting  fact.  Would 
the  omission  have  occurred  had  Drawbaugh  been 
an  Englishman  instead  of  a  Pennsylvanian,  or 
had  not  Bell  been  a  native  Scotchman*? 

The  name  of  Charles  Tellier,  the  Frenchman, 
does  not  appear  in  the  Britannica.  Not  even 
under  Refrigerating  and  Ice  Making  is  he  men- 
tioned. And  yet  back  in  1868  he  began  experi- 
ments   which    culminated    in    the    refrigerating 


INVENTIONS  163 

plant  as  used  on  ocean  vessels  to-day.  Tellier, 
more  than  any  other  man,  can  be  called  the  in- 
ventor of  cold  storage,  one  of  the  most  important 
of  modern  discoveries,  for  it  has  revolutionized 
the  food  question  and  had  far-reaching  effects  on 
commerce.  Again  we  are  prompted  to  ask  if  his 
name  would  have  been  omitted  from  the  Britan- 
nica  had  he  been  an  Englishman  . 

Another  unaccountable  omission  occurs  in  the 
case  of  Rudolph  Diesel.  Diesel,  the  inventor  of 
the  Diesel  engine,  is  comparable  only  to  Watts  in 
the  development  of  power;  but  he  is  not  consid- 
ered of  sufficient  importance  by  the  editors  of  the 
Encyclopedia  Britannzca  to  be  given  a  biography. 
And  under  Oil  Engine  we  read:  "Mr.  Diesel  has 
produced  a  very  interesting  engine  which  departs 
considerably  from  other  types."  Then  follows  a 
brief  technical  description  of  it.  This  is  the  en- 
tire consideration  given  to  Diesel,  with  his  "in- 
teresting" engine,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Brit- 
ish Government  sent  to  Germany  for  him  in  order 
to  investigate  his  invention! 

Few  names  in  the  history  of  modem  invention 
stand  as  high  as  Wilbur  and  Orville  Wright.  To 
them  can  be  attributed  the  birth  of  the  airplane. 
In  1908,  to  use  the  words  of  an  eminent  author- 
ity, "the  Wrights  brought  out  their  biplanes  and 
practically  taught  the  world  to  fly."     The  story 


i64      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

of  how  these  two  brothers  developed  aviation  is, 
according  to  the  same  critic,  "one  of  the  most  in- 
spiring chronicles  of  the  age."  The  Britannzcd!s 
editors,  if  we  are  to  judge  their  viewpoint  by  the 
treatment  accorded  the  Wright  brothers  in  this 
encyclopaedia,  held  no  such  opinion.  Not  only 
is  neither  of  these  men  given  a  biography,  but 
under  Flight  and  Flying — the  only  place  in  the 
whole  twenty-nine  volumes  where  their  names  ap- 
pear— they  are  accorded  much  less  consideration 
than  they  deserv^e.  Sir  Hiram  S.  Maxim's  flying 
adventures  receive  more  space. 

A  subject  which  unfortunately  is  too  little 
known  in  this  country  and  yet  one  in  the  develop- 
ment of  which  America  has  played  a  very  im- 
portant part,  is  pictorial  photography.  A  double 
interest  therefore  attaches  to  the  manner  in  which 
this  subject  is  treated  in  the  Britannica.  Since 
the  writer  of  the  article  was  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  true  conditions,  an  adequate  record  might 
have  been  looked  for.  But  no  such  record  was 
forthcoming.  In  the  discussion  of  photography 
in  this  Encyclopsedia  the  same  bias  is  displayed  as 
in  other  departments — the  same  petty  insularity, 
the  same  discrimination  against  America,  the 
same  suppression  of  vital  truth,  and  the  same  ex- 
aggerated glorification  of  England.     In  this  in- 


PHOTOGRAPHY  16^ 

stance,  however,  there  is  documentary  proof  show- 
ing deliberate  misrepresentation,  and  therefore 
we  need  not  attribute  the  shortcomings  to  chau- 
vinistic stupidity,  as  we  have  so  charitably  done  in 
similar  causes. 

In  the  article  on  Pictorial  Photography  in  this 
aggressibly  British  reference  work  we  find  the 
following:  "It  is  interesting  to  note  that  as  a 
distinct  movement  pictorial  photography  is  es- 
sentially of  British  origin,  and  this  is  shown  by 
the  manner  in  which  organized  photographic 
bodies  in  Vienna,  Brussels,  Paris,  St.  Petersburg, 
Florence,  and  other  European  cities,  as  well  as  in 
Philadelphia,  Chicago,  etc.,  following  the  exam- 
ple of  London,  held  exhibitions  on  exactly  similar 
lines  to  those  of  the  London  Photographic  Salon, 
and  invited  known  British  exhibitors  to  contrib- 
ute." Then  it  is  noted  that  the  interchange  of 
works  between  British  and  foreign  exhibitors  led, 
in  the  year  1900,  "to  a  very  remarkable  cult  call- 
ing itself  'The  New  American  School,'  which  had 
a  powerful  influence  on  contemporaries  in  Great 
Britain." 

The  foregoing  brief  and  inadequate  statements 
contain  all  the  credit  that  is  given  America  in 
this  field.  New  York,  where  much  of  the  fore- 
most and  important  work  was  done,  is  not  men- 
tioned; and  the  name  of  Alfred  Stieglitz,  who  is 


i66      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

undeniably  the  towering  figure  in  American  pho- 
tography as  well  as  one  of  the  foremost  figures  in 
the  world's  photography,  is  omitted  entirely. 
Furthermore,  slight  indication  is  given  of  the 
"powerful  influence"  which  America  has  had;  and 
the  significant  part  she  has  played  in  photography, 
together  with  the  names  of  the  American  leaders, 
is  completely  ignored,  although  there  is  quite  a 
lengthy  discussion  concerning  English  photo- 
graphic history,  including  credit  to  those  who  par- 
ticipated in  it. 

For  instance,  the  American,  Steichen,  a  world 
figure  in  photography  and,  of  a  type,  perhaps  the 
greatest  who  ever  lived,  is  not  mentioned.  Nor 
arc  Gertrude  Kasebier  and  Frank  Eugene,  both  of 
whom  especially  the  former,  has  had  an  enormous 
international  influence  in  pictorial  photography. 
And  although  there  is  a  history  of  the  formation 
of  the  "Linked  Ring"  in  London,  no  credit  is 
given  to  Stieglitz  whose  work,  during  twenty- 
five  years  in  Germany  and  Vienna,  was  one  of  the 
prime  influences  in  the  crystallization  of  this 
brotherhood.  Nor  is  there  so  much  as  a  passing 
reference  to  Camera  Work  (published  in  New 
York)  which  stands  at  the  head  of  photographic 
publications. 

As  I  have  said,  there  exists  documentary  evi- 
dence which  proves  the  deliberate  unfairness  of 


PHOTOGRAPHY  167 

this  article.  It  is  therefore  not  necessary  to  ac- 
cept my  judgment  on  the  importance  of  Stieglitz 
and  the  work  done  in  America.  A.  Horsley 
Hinton,  who  is  responsible  for  the  prejudiced 
article  in  the  Encyclopsedia,  was  the  editor  of  The 
Amateur  Photographer,  a  London  publication; 
and  in  that  magazine,  as  long  ago  as  1904,  we 
have,  in  Mr.  Hinton's  own  words,  a  refutation  of 
what  he  wrote  for  the  Britannica.  In  the  May 
19  (1904)  issue  he  writes:  "We  believe  every 
one  who  is  interested  in  the  advance  of  photog- 
raphy generally,  will  learn  with  pleasure  that 
Mr.  Alfred  Stieglitz,  whose  life-long  and  wholly 
disinterested  devotion  to  pictorial  photography 
should  secure  him  a  unique  position,  will  be  pres- 
ent at  the  opening  of  the  next  Exhibition  of  the 
Photographic  Salon  in  London.  Mr.  Stieglitz 
was  zealous  in  all  good  photographic  causes  long 
before  the  Salon,  and  indeed  long  before  pictorial 
photography  was  discussed — with  Dr.  Vogel  in 
Germany,  for  instance,  twenty-five  years  ago." 

Elsewhere  in  this  same  magazine  we  read: 
"American  photography  is  going  to  be  the  ruling 
note  throughout  the  world  unless  others  bestir 
themselves;  indeed,  the  Photo-Secession  (Ameri- 
can) pictures  have  already  captured  the  highest 
places  in  the  esteem  of  the  civilized  world. 
Hardly  an  exhibition  of  first  importance  is  any- 


i68      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

where  held  without  a  striking  collection  of  Amer- 
ican work,  brought  together  and  sent  by  Mr.  Al- 
fred Stieglitz.  For  the  last  two  or  three  years  in 
the  European  exhibitions  these  collections  have 
secured  the  premier  awards,  or  distinctions."  And 
again  we  find  high  praise  of  Steichen,  "than  whom 
America  possesses  no  more  brilliant  genius  among 
her  sons  who  have  taken  up  photography." 

These  quotations — and  many  similar  ones  ap- 
peared over  a  decade  ago  in  Mr.  Hinton's  maga- 
zine— ^give  evidence  that  Mr.  Hinton  was  not 
unaware  of  the  extreme  importance  of  American 
photographic  work  or  of  the  eminent  men  who 
took  part  in  it;  and  yet  in  writing  his  article  for 
the  Britannica  he  has  apparently  carefully  for- 
gotten what  he  himself  had  previously  written. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  evidence  we  have  of 
deliberate  injustice  in  the  Encyclopsedia's  dis- 
graceful neglect  of  our  efforts  in  this  line.  In 
1913,  in  the  same  English  magazine,  we  find  not 
only  an  indirect  confession  of  the  Britannica's 
bias,  but  also  the  personal  reason  for  that  bias. 
Speaking  of  Stieglitz's  connection  with  that  phase 
of  photographic  history  to  which  Mr.  Hinton  was 
most  intimately  connected,  this  publication  says: 
'*At  that  era,  and  for  long  afterwards,  Stieglitz 
was,  in  fact,  a  thorn  in  our  sides,  'Who's  Boss 
of  the  Show^'  inquires  a  poster,  now  placarded 


PHOTOGRAPHY  i6g 

in  London.  Had  that  question  been  asked  of 
the  (London)  Salon,  an  irritated  whisper  of 
honesty  would  have  replied  'Stieglitz.'  And 
...  we  didn't  like  it.  We  couldn't  do  without 
him ;  but  these  torrential  doctrines  of  his  were,  to 
be  candid,  a  nuisance.  .  .  .  He  is  an  influence; 
an  influence  for  which,  even  if  photography  were 
not  concerned,  we  should  be  grateful,  but  which, 
as  it  is,  we  photographers  can  never  perhaps  justly 
estimate."  After  this  frank  admission  the  maga- 
zine adds:  "Stieglitz — too  big  a  man  to  need 
any  'defense' — -has  been  considerably  misunder- 
stood and  misrepresented,  and,  in  so  far  as  this  is 
so,  photographers  and  photography  itself  are  the 
losers." 

What  better  direct  evidence  could  one  desire 
than  this  naif  confession?  Yes,  Stieglitz,  who, 
according  to  Mr.  Hinton's  own  former  publica- 
tion, was  a  thorn  in  that  critic's  side,  has  indeed 
been  "misrepresented";  but  nowhere  has  he  been 
neglected  with  so  little  excuse  as  in  Mr.  Hinton's 
own  article  in  the  Britannica.  And  though — 
again  according  to  this  magazine — Stieglitz  is 
"too  big  a  man  to  need  any  'defense,'  "  I  cannot 
resist  defending  him  here;  for  the  whole  petty, 
personal  and  degrading  affair  is  characteristic  of 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica's  contemptible  treat- 
ment of  America  and  Americans. 


170      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Such  flagrant  political  intriguing,  such  an  ob- 
vious attempt  to  use  the  Encyclopffidia  to  destroy 
America's  high  place  in  the  world  of  modem 
achievement,  can  only  arouse  disgust  in  the  un- 
prejudiced reader.  The  great  light-bearer  in  the 
photographic  field,  Camera  Work,  if  generally 
known  and  appreciated,  would  have  put  Hr.  Hin- 
ton's  own  inferior  magazine  out  of  existence  as  a 
power;  and  his  omitting  to  mention  it  in  his  arti- 
cle and  even  in  his  bibliography,  is  a  flagrant  ex- 
ample of  the  Britantiica's  refusal  to  tell  the  whole 
truth  whenever  that  truth  would  harm  England 
or  benefit  America. 

In  view  of  the  wide  and  growing  interest  in 
aesthetics  and  of  the  immense  progress  which  has 
been  made  recently  in  aesthetic  research,  one  would 
expect  to  find  an  adequate  and  comprehensive 
treatment  of  that  subject  in  a  work  like  the  Britan- 
nica.  But  here  again  one  will  be  disappointed. 
The  article  on  aesthetics  reveals  a  parti  pris  which 
illy  becomes  a  work  which  should  be,  as  it  claims 
to  be,  objective  and  purely  informative.  The 
author  of  the  article  is  critical  and  not  seldom 
argumentative;  and,  as  a  result,  full  justice  is  not 
done  the  theories  and  research  of  many  eminent 
modern  aestheticians.  Twenty-two  lines  are  all 
that  are  occupied  in  setting  forth  the  aesthetic 


ESTHETICS  171 

writers  in  Germany  since  Goethe  and  Schiller,  and 
in  this  brief  paragraph,  many  of  the  most  signifi- 
cant contributors  to  the  subject  are  not  even  given 
passing  mention.  And,  incredible  as  it  may 
seem,  that  division  of  the  article  which  deals  with 
the  German  writers  is  shorter  than  the  division 
dealing  with  English  writers! 

One  might  forgive  scantiness  of  material  in  this 
general  article  if  it  were  possible  to  find  the  lead- 
ing modern  esthetic  theories  set  forth  in  the 
biographies  of  the  men  who  conceived  them.  But 
— what  is  even  more  astonishing  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia's treatment  of  aesthetics — there  are  no  bi- 
ographies of  many  of  the  scientists  whose  names 
and  discoveries  are  familiar  to  any  one  even 
superficially  interested  in  the  subject.  Several  of 
these  men,  whose  contributions  have  marked  a  new 
epoch  in  psychological  and  aesthetic  research,  are 
not  even  mentioned  in  the  text  of  the  Encyclo- 
paedia; and  the  only  indication  we  have  that  they 
lived  and  worked  is  in  an  occasional  foot-note. 
Their  names  do  not  so  much  as  appear  in  the 
Index ! 

Kiilpe,  one  of  the  foremost  psychologists  and 
aestheticians,  has  no  biography,  and  he  is  merely 
mentioned  in  a  foot-note  as  being  an  advocate  of 
the  principle  of  association.  Lipps,  who  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  new  philosophy  of  aesthetics  and 


172      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

formulated  the  hypothesis  of  Einfiihlung,  has  no 
biography.  His  name  appears  once — under 
/Esthetics — and  his  theory  is  actually  disputed  by 
the  critic  who  wrote  the  article.  Groos,  another 
important  aesthetic  leader,  is  also  without  a  bi- 
ography; and  his  name  is  not  in  the  Britannica's 
Index.  Nor  is  Hildebrand,  whose  solutions  to 
the  problem  of  form  are  of  grave  importance, 
thought  worthy  of  mention. 

There  is  no  excuse  for  such  inadequacy,  es- 
pecially as  England  possesses  in  Vernon  Lee  a 
most  capable  interpreter  of  sesthetics — a  writer 
thoroughly  familiar  with  the  subject,  and  one 
whose  articles  and  books  along  this  line  of  re- 
search have  long  been  conspicuous  for  their  bril- 
liancy and  thoroughness. 

Furthermore,  in  this  article  we  have  another 
example  of  the  Britannica's  contempt  for  Ameri- 
can achievement.  This  country  has  made  impor- 
tant contributions  to  sesthetics;  and  only  an  Eng- 
lishman could  have  written  a  modern  exposition 
of  the  subject  without  referring  to  the  researches 
of  William  James  and  Hugo  Miinsterberg.  The 
Lange-James  hypothesis  has  had  an  important  in- 
fluence on  aesthetic  theory;  and  Miinsterberg's  ob- 
servations on  sesthetic  preference,  form-perception 
and  projection  of  feelings,  play  a  vital  role  in  the 
history  of  modem  aesthetic  science;  but  you  will 


ESTHETICS  173 

look  in  vain  for  any  mention  of  these  Ameri- 
cans' work.  Miinsterberg's  Principles  of  Art 
Education  is  not  even  included  in  the  bibliog- 
raphy. 


X 

PHILOSOPHY 

One  going  to  the  Encyclopdidia  Britannica  for 
critical  information  concerning  philosophy  will 
encounter  the  very  essence  of  that  spirit  which  is 
merely  reflected  in  the  other  departments  of  the 
Encyclopaedia's  culture.  In  this  field  the  Eng- 
lish editors  and  contributors  of  the  Britannica  are 
dealing  with  the  sources  of  thought,  and  as  a  re- 
sult British  prejudice  finds  a  direct  outlet. 

To  be  sure,  it  is  difBcult  for  a  critic  possessing 
the  mental  characteristics  and  the  ethical  and  re- 
ligious predispositions  of  his  nation,  to  reveal  the 
entire  field  of  philosophy  without  bias.  He  has 
certain  temperamental  affinities  which  will  draw 
him  toward  his  own  country's  philosophical  sys- 
tems, and  certain  antipathies  which  will  turn  him 
against  contrary  systems  of  other  nations.  But 
in  the  higher  realms  of  criticism  it  is  possible  to 
find  that  intellectual  detachment  which  can  re- 
view impersonally  the  development  of  thought, 
no  matter  what  tangential  directions  it  may  take. 
There  have  been  several  adequate  histories  of  phi- 

174 


PHILOSOPHY  175 

losophy  written  by  British  critics,  proving  that 
it  is  not  necessary  for  an  Englishman  to  regard 
the  evolution  of  thinking  only  through  distorted 
and  prejudiced  eyes. 

The  Encyclopczdia  Britannica^  however,  evi- 
dently holds  to  no  such  just  ideal  in  its  exposi- 
tion of  philosophical  research.  Only  in  a  very 
few  of  the  biographies  do  we  find  evidences  of 
an  attempt  to  set  forth  this  difficult  subject  with 
impartiality.  As  in  its  other  departments,  the 
Encyclopaedia  places  undue  stress  on  British 
thinkers :  it  accords  them  space  out  of  all  propor- 
tion to  their  relative  importance,  and  includes 
obscure  and  inconsequent  British  moralists  while 
omitting  biographies  of  far  more  important 
thinkers  of  other  nations. 

This  obvious  discrepancy  in  space  might  be 
overlooked  did  the  actual  material  of  the  biog- 
raphies indicate  the  comparative  importance  of 
the  thinkers  dealt  with.  But  when  British  critics 
consider  the  entire  history  of  thought  from  the 
postulates  of  their  own  writers,  and  emphasize 
only  those  philosophers  of  foreign  nationality 
who  appeal  to  "English  ways  of  thinking,"  then 
it  is  impossible  to  gain  any  adequate  idea  of  the 
philosophical  teachings  of  the  world  as  a  whole. 
And  this  is  precisely  the  method  pursued  by  the 
Britannica  in  dealing  with  the  history  and  de- 


176      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

velopment  of  modern  thought.  In  nearly  every 
instance,  and  in  every  important  instance,  it  has 
been  an  English  didactician  who  has  interpreted 
for  this  Encyclopaedia  the  teachings  of  the  world's 
leading  philosophers;  and  there  are  few  biogra- 
phies which  do  not  reveal  British  prejudice. 

The  modem  English  critical  mind,  being  in  the 
main  both  insular  and  middle-class,  is  dominated 
by  a  suburban  moral  instinct.  And  even  among 
the  few  more  scholarly  critics  there  is  a  residue 
of  Puritanism  which  tinctures  the  syllogisms  and 
dictates  the  deductions.  In  bringing  their  minds 
to  bear  on  creative  works  these  critics  are  filled 
with  a  sense  of  moral  disquietude.  At  bottom 
they  are  Churchmen.  They  mistake  the  tastes 
and  antipathies  which  have  been  bred  in  them  by 
a  narrow  religious  and  ethical  culture,  for  pure 
critical  criteria.  They  regard  the  great  men  of 
other  nations  through  the  miasma  of  their  tribal 
taboos. 

This  rigid  and  self-satisfied  provincialism  of 
outlook,  as  applied  to  philosophers  in  the  Ency- 
clopedia Britannica,  is  not,  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve, the  result  of  a  deliberate  attempt  to  exag- 
gerate the  importance  of  British  thinkers  and  to 
underrate  the  importance  of  non-British  thinkers. 
To  the  contrary,  it  is,  I  believe,  the  result  of  an 
unconscious  ethical  prejudice  coupled  with  a  blind 


PHILOSOPHY  177 

and  self -contented  patriotism.  But  whatever  the 
cause,  the  result  is  the  same.  Consequently,  any- 
one who  wishes  an  unbiased  exposition  of  philo- 
sophical history  must  go  to  a  source  less  insular, 
and  less  distorted  than  the  Britannica.  Only  a 
British  moralist,  or  one  encrusted  with  British 
morality,  will  be  wholly  satisfied  with  the  manner 
in  which  philosophy  is  here  treated;  and  since 
there  are  a  great  many  Americans  who  have  not, 
as  yet,  succumbed  to  English  bourgeois  theology 
and  who  do  not  believe,  for  instance,  that  Isaac 
Newton  is  of  greater  philosophic  importance  than 
Kant,  this  Encyclopaedia  will  be  of  far 
more  value  to  an  Englishman  than  to  an  Ameri- 
can. 

The  first  distortion  which  will  impress  one  who 
seeks  information  in  the  Britannica  is  to  be  found 
in  the  treatment  of  English  empirical  philos- 
ophers— that  is,  of  John  Locke,  Isaac  Newton, 
George  Berkeley,  Shaftesbury,  Francis  Hutch- 
eson,  Joseph  Butler,  Mandeville,  Hume,  Adam 
Smith  and  David  Hartley.  Locke  receives  fif- 
teen columns  of  detailed  exposition,  with  inset 
headings.  "He  was,"  we  are  told,  "typically 
English  in  his  reverence  for  facts"  and  "a  signal 
example  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  world  of  the  love  of 
attainable  truth  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  good- 
ness."   Then  we  are  given  the  quotation:     "If 


178      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Locke  made  few  discoveries,  Socrates  made  none." 
Furthermore,  he  was  "memorable  in  the  record 
of  human  progress." 

Isaac  Newton  receives  no  less  than  nineteen  col- 
umns filled  with  specific  and  unstinted  praise; 
and  in  the  three-and-a-half  column  biography  of 
George  Berkeley  we  learn  that  Berkeley's  "new 
conception  marks  a  distinct  stage  of  progress  in 
human  thought" ;  that  "he  once  for  all  lifted  the 
problem  of  metaphysics  to  a  higher  level,"  and, 
with  Hume,  "determined  the  form  into  which 
later  metaphysical  questions  have  been  thrown." 
Shaftesbury,  whose  main  philosophical  import- 
ance was  due  to  his  ethical  and  moral  speculations 
in  refutation  of  Hobbes'  egoism,  is  represented 
by  a  biography  of  four  and  a  half  columns  I 

Hume  receives  over  fourteen  columns,  with 
inset  headings ;  Adam  Smith,  nearly  nine  columns, 
five  and  a  half  of  which  are  devoted  to  a  detailed 
consideration  of  his  Wealth  of  Nations.  Hutch- 
eson,  the  ethical  moralist  who  drew  the  analogy 
between  beauty  and  virtue — the  doctrinaire  of  the 
moral  sense  and  the  benevolent  feelings — is  given 
no  less  than  five  columns;  while  Joseph  Butler, 
the  philosophic  divine  who,  we  are  told,  is  a 
"typical  instance  of  the  English  philosophical 
mind"  and  whose  two  basic  premises  were  the  ex- 
istence of  a  theological  god  and  the  limitation  of 


PHILOSOPHY  179 

human  knowledge,  is  given  six  and  a  half 
columns  I 

On  the  other  hand,  Mandeville  receives  only  a 
column  and  two- thirds.  To  begin  with,  he  was 
of  French  parentage,  and  his  philosophy  (accord- 
ing to  the  Britannica)  "has  always  been  stigma- 
tized as  false,  cynical  and  degrading."  He  did 
not  believe  in  the  higher  Presbyterian  virtues,  and 
read  hypocrisy  into  the  vaunted  goodness  of  the 
English.  Although  in  a  history  of  modern  phi- 
losophy he  is  deserving  of  nearly  equal  space  with 
Butler,  in  the  Britannica  he  is  given  only  a  little 
over  one-fifth  of  the  space  I  Even  David  Hart- 
ley, the  English  physician  who  supplemented 
Hume's  theory  of  knowledge,  is  given  nearly  as 
much  consideration  as  the  "degrading"  Mande- 
ville. And  Joseph  Priestley,  who  merely  popu- 
larized these  theories,  is  given  no  less  than  two 
columns. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  what  has  been  called  the 
"philosophy  of  the  enlightenment"  in  France  and 
Germany,  and  we  shall  see  the  exquisite  workings 
of  British  moral  prejudice  in  all  its  purity.  Vol- 
taire, we  learn,  "was  one  of  the  most  astonishing, 
if  not  exactly  one  of  the  more  admirable,  figures 
of  letters."  He  had  "cleverness,"  but  not 
"genius";  and  his  great  fault  was  an  "inveterate 
superficiality."     Again:     "Not  the  most  elabor- 


i8o      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

ate  work  of  Voltaire  is  of  much  value  for  matter." 
(The  biography,  a  derogatory  and  condescending 
one,  is  written  by  the  eminent  moralist,  George 
Saintsbury.) 

Condillac,  who  is  given  far  less  space  than 
either  Berkeley  or  Shaftesbury,  only  half  of  the 
space  given  Hutcheson,  and  only  a  little  over  one- 
third  of  the  space  given  Joseph  Butler,  is  set  down 
as  important  for  "having  established  systemat- 
ically in  France  the  principles  of  Locke."  But 
his  "genius  was  not  of  the  highest  order" ;  and  in 
his  analysis  of  the  mind  "he  missed  out  the  active 
and  spiritual  side  of  human  experience."  James 
Mill  did  not  like  him,  and  his  method  of  imag- 
inative reconstruction  "was  by  no  means  suited 
to  English  ways  of  thinking."  This  latter  short- 
coming no  doubt  accounts  for  the  meagre  and  un- 
complimentary treatment  Condillac  receives  in 
the  great  British  reference  work  which  is  devoted 
so  earnestly  to  "English  ways  of  thinking." 

Helvetius,  whose  theory  of  equality  is  closely 
related  to  Condillac's  doctrine  of  psychic  pas- 
sivity, is  given  even  shorter  shrift,  receiving  only 
a  column  and  a  third;  and  it  is  noted  that  "there 
is  no  doubt  that  his  thinking  was  unsystematic." 
Diderot,  however,  fares  much  better,  receiving 
five  columns  of  biography.  But  then,  more  and 
more  "did  Diderot  turn  for  the  hope  of  the  race 


PHILOSOPHY  181 

to  virtue;  in  other  words,  to  such  a  regulation  of 
conduct  and  motive  as  shall  make  us  tender,  piti- 
ful, simple,  contented," — an  attitude  eminently 
fitted  to  "English  ways  of  thinking"  I  And  Di- 
derot's one  great  literary  passion,  we  learn,  was 
Richardson,  the  English  novelist. 

La  Mettrie,  the  atheist,  who  held  no  brief  for 
the  pious  virtues  or  for  the  theological  soul  so  be- 
loved by  the  British,  receives  just  half  a  column 
of  biography  in  which  the  facts  of  his  doctrine 
are  set  down  more  in  sorrow  than  in  anger.  Von 
Holbach,  the  German-Parisian  prophet  of  earthly 
happiness,  who  denied  the  existence  of  a  deity  and 
believed  that  the  soul  became  extinct  at  physical 
death,  receives  only  a  little  more  space  than  La 
Mettrie — less  than  a  column.  But  then,  the  up- 
rightness of  Von  Holbach's  character  "won  the 
friendship  of  many  to  whom  his  philosophy  was 
repugnant." 

Montesquieu,  however,  is  given  five  columns 
with  liberal  praise — both  space  and  eulogy  being 
beyond  his  deserts.  Perhaps  an  explanation  of 
such  generosity  lies  in  this  sentence  which  we 
quote  from  his  biography:  "It  is  not  only  that 
he  is  an  Anglo-maniac,  but  that  he  is  rather  Eng- 
lish than  French  in  style  and  thought." 

Rousseau,  on  the  other  hand,  possessed  no  such 
exalted  qualities;  and  the  biography  of  this  great 


i82      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Frenchman  is  shorter  than  Adam  Smith's  and  only 
a  little  longer  than  that  of  the  English  divine, 
Joseph  Butler  I  The  Britannica  informs  us  that 
Rousseau's  moral  character  was  weak  and  that  he 
did  not  stand  very  high  as  a  man.  Furthermore, 
he  was  not  a  philosopher;  the  essence  of  his  re- 
ligion was  sentimentalism ;  and  during  the  last  ten 
or  fifteen  years  of  his  life  he  was  not  sane.  If 
you  wish  to  see  how  unjust  and  biased  is  this 
moral  denunciation  of  Rousseau,  turn  to  any  un- 
prejudiced history  of  philosophy,  and  compare  the 
serious  and  lengthy  consideration  given  him,  with 
the  consideration  given  the  English  moral  think- 
ers who  prove  such  great  favorites  with  the  Bri- 
tannica's  editors. 

The  German  "philosophers  of  the  enlighten- 
ment" are  given  even  less  consideration.  Chris- 
tian Wolff,  whose  philosophy  admittedly  held 
almost  undisputed  sway  in  Germany  till  eclipsed 
by  Kantianism,  receives  only  a  column-and-a-half 
biography,  only  half  the  space  given  to  Samuel 
Clarke,  the  English  theological  writer,  and  equal 
space  with  John  Norris,  the  English  philosophical 
divine,  and  with  Arthur  Collier,  the  English  High 
Church  theologian.  Even  Anthony  Collins,  the 
English  deist,  receives  nearly  as  long  a  biography. 
Moses  Mendelssohn  draws  only  two  and  a  half 
columns;  Crusius,  only  half  a  column;  Lambert, 


PHILOSOPHY  183 

only  a  little  over  three-fourths  of  a  column ;  Rei- 
marus,  only  a  column  and  a  third,  in  which  he  is 
considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  English 
deists;  and  Edelmann  and  Tetens  have  no  biog- 
raphies whatever  I 

Kant,  as  I  have  noted,  receives  less  biographical 
space  than  Isaac  Newton,  and  only  about  a  fifth 
more  space  than  does  either  John  Locke  or  Hume. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  indicate  here  the  prejudice 
shown  by  these  comparisons.  Every  one  is  cog- 
nizant of  Kant's  tremendous  importance  in  the 
history  of  thought,  and  knows  what  relative  con- 
sideration should  be  given  him  in  a  work  like  the 
Britannica.  Hamann,  "the  wise  man  of  the 
North,"  who  was  the  foremost  of  Kant's  oppo- 
nents, receives  only  a  column-and-a-quarter  biog- 
raphy, in  which  he  is  denounced.  His  writings, 
to  one  not  acquainted  with  the  man,  must  be 
"entirely  unintelligible  and,  from  their  peculiar, 
pietistic  tone  and  scriptural  jargon,  probably  of- 
fensive." And  he  expressed  himself  in  "uncouth, 
barbarous  fashion."  Herder,  however,  another 
and  lesser  opponent  of  Kantianism,  receives  four 
and  a  half  columns.  Jacobi  receives  three ;  Rein- 
hold,  half  a  column;  Maimon,  two-thirds  of  a 
column;  and  Schiller,  four  and  a  half  columns. 
Compare  these  allotments  of  space  with:  Thomas 
Hill  Green,  the  English  neo-Kantian,  two  and 


i84      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

two-thirds  columns;  Richard  Price,  a  column  and 
three-fourths;  Martineau,  the  English  philosophic 
divine,  five  columns;  Ralph  Cudworth,  two  col- 
umns ;  and  Joseph  Butler,  six  and  a  half  columns  I 
In  the  treatment  of  German  philosophic  ro- 
manticism the  Encyclop(zdia  Britannica  is  curi- 
ously prejudiced.  The  particular  philosophers  of 
this  school — especially  the  ones  with  specula- 
tive systems — who  had  a  deep  and  wide  influence 
on  English  thought,  are  treated  with  adequate 
liberality.  But  the  later  idealistic  thinkers,  who 
substituted  criticism  for  speculation,  receive  scant 
attention,  and  in  several  instances  are  omitted  en- 
tirely. For  English  readers  such  a  dispropor- 
tioned  and  purely  national  attitude  may  be  ade- 
quate, since  England's  intellectualism  is,  in  the 
main,  insular.  But,  it  must  be  remembered,  the 
Britannica  has  assumed  the  character  of  an  Amer- 
ican institution ;  and,  to  date,  this  country  has  not 
quite  reached  that  state  of  British  complacency 
where  it  chooses  to  ignore  all  information  save 
that  which  is  narrowly  relative  to  English  culture. 
Some  of  us  are  still  un-British  enough  to  want  an 
encyclopaedia  of  universal  information.  The 
Britannica  is  not  such  a  reference  work,  and  the 
manner  in  which  it  deals  with  the  romantic 
philosophers  furnishes  ample  substantiation  of 
this  fact. 


PHILOSOPHY  185 

Fichte,  for  instance,  whose  philosophy  em- 
bodies a  moral  idealism  eminently  acceptable  to 
"English  ways  of  thinking,"  receives  seven  col- 
umns of  biography.  Schelling,  whose  ideas  were 
tainted  with  mythical  mysticism,  but  who  was  not 
an  evolutionist  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word, 
receives  five  columns.  Hegel,  who  was,  in  a 
sense,  the  great  English  philosophical  idol  and 
whose  doctrines  had  a  greater  influence  in  Great 
Britain  than  those  of  any  other  thinker,  is  given 
no  less  than  fifteen  columns,  twice  the  space  that 
is  given  to  Rousseau,  and  five-sixths  of  the  space 
that  is  given  to  Kant!  Even  Schleiermacher  is 
given  almost  equal  space  with  Rousseau,  and  his 
philosophy  is  interpreted  as  an  effort  "to  reconcile 
science  and  philosophy  with  religion  and  theology, 
and  the  modern  world  with  the  Christian  church." 
Also,  the  focus  of  his  thought,  culture  and  life, 
we  are  told,  "was  religion  and  theology." 

Schopenhauer  is  one  of  the  few  foreign  philos- 
ophers who  receive  adequate  treatment  in  the 
Encyclopcsdia  Britannica.  But  Bostrom,  in 
whose  works  the  romantic  school  attained  its  sys- 
tematic culmination,  receives  just  twenty-four 
lines,  less  space  than  is  devoted  to  Abraham 
Tucker,  the  English  moralist,  or  to  Garth  Wilkin- 
son, the  English  Swedenborgian ;  and  about  the 
same  amount  of  space  as  is  given  to  John  Morel  1, 


i86      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

the  English  Congregational  ist  minister  who 
turned  philosopher.  And  Frederick  Christian 
Sibbern  receives  no  biography  whatever  I 

Kierkegaard,  whose  influence  in  the  North  has 
been  profound,  receives  only  half  a  column,  equal 
space  with  Andrew  Baxter,  the  feeble  Scottish 
metaphysician;  and  only  half  the  space  given  to 
Thomas  Brown,  another  Scotch  "philosopher." 
Fries  who,  with  Herbart,  was  the  forerunner  of 
modern  psychology'  and  one  of  the  leading  repre- 
sentatives of  the  critical  philosophy,  is  given  just 
one  column ;  but  Beneke,  a  follower  of  Fries,  who 
approached  more  closely  to  the  English  school, 
is  allotted  twice  the  amount  of  space  that  Fries 
receives. 

The  four  men  who  marked  the  dissolution  of 
the  Hegelian  school — Krause,  Weisse,  I.  H. 
Fichte  and  Feuerbach — receive  as  the  sum  total 
of  all  their  biographies  less  space  than  is  given  to 
the  English  divin*?,  James  Martineau,  or  to 
Francis  Hutcheson.  (In  combating  Hegelian- 
ism  these  four  thinkers  invaded  the  precincts  of 
British  admiration.)  In  the  one-column  biog- 
raphy of  Krause  we  are  told  that  the  spirit  of  his 
thought  is  difficult  to  follow  and  that  his  term- 
inology is  artificial.  Weisse  receives  only  twen- 
ty-three lines;  and  I.  H.  Fichte,  the  son  of  J.  G. 
Fichte,    receives   only   two-thirds   of   a   column. 


PHILOSOPHY  187 

Feuerbach,  who  marked  the  transition  between 
romanticism  and  positivism  and  who  accordingly 
holds  an  important  position  in  the  evolution  of 
modem  thought,  is  accorded  a  biography  of  a 
column  and  a  half,  shorter  than  that  of  Richard 
Price.  Feuerbach,  however,  unlike  Price,  was  an 
anti-theological  philosopher,  and  is  severely  crit- 
icised for  his  spiritual  shortcomings. 

Let  us  glance  quickly  at  the  important  phi- 
losophers of  positivism  as  represented  in  the  En- 
cyclo-p(zdia  Britannica.  At  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  at  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth 
centuries  the  principal  French  philosophers  repre- 
sentative of  schools  were  de  Maistre,  Maine  de 
Biran,  Ampere,  Saint-Simon  and  Victor  Cousin. 
De  Maistre,  the  most  important  philosopher  of 
the  principle  of  authority,  is  given  a  biography  of 
a  column  and  a  third,  is  highly  praised  for  his 
ecclesiasticism,  and  is  permitted  to  be  ranked  with 
Hobbes.  Maine  de  Biran  receives  a  little  over 
a  column ;  Ampere,  less  than  a  column ;  and  Saint- 
Simon,  two  and  a  third  columns. 

Victor  Cousin  is  given  the  astonishing  amount 
of  space  of  eleven  columns;  but  just  why  he 
should  have  been  treated  in  this  extravagant  man- 
ner is  not  clear,  for  we  are  told  that  his  search  for 
principles  was  not  profound  and  that  he  "left  no 
distinctive,  permanent  principles  of  philosophy." 


i88      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Nor  does  it  seem  possible  that  he  should  draw 
nearly  as  much  space  as  Rousseau  and  Montes- 
quieu combined  simply  because  he  left  behind 
interesting  analyses  and  expositions  of  the  work 
of  Locke  and  the  Scottish  philosophers.  Even 
Comte  is  given  only  four  and  a  half  columns 
more. 

The  English  philosophers  of  the  nineteenth 
century  before  John  Stuart  Mill  are  awarded 
space  far  in  excess  of  their  importance,  compara- 
tively speaking.  For  instance,  James  Mill  re- 
ceives two  columns  of  biography;  Coleridge,  who 
**did  much  to  deepen  and  liberalize  Christian 
thought  in  England,"  five  and  three-fourths  col- 
umns; Carlyle,  nine  and  two-thirds  columns; 
William  Hamilton,  two  and  three-fourths  col- 
umns; Henry  Mansel,  a  disciple  of  Hamilton's, 
two-thirds  of  a  column ;  Whewell,  over  a  column ; 
and  Bentham,  over  three  and  a  half  columns. 

Bentham's  doctrines  "have  become  so  far  part 
of  the  common  thought  of  the  time,  that  there  is 
hardly  an  educated  man  who  does  not  accept  as 
too  clear  for  argument  truths  which  were  invis- 
ible till  Bentham  pointed  them  out.  .  .  .  The 
services  rendered  by  Bentham  to  the  world  would 
not,  however,  be  exhausted  even  by  the  practical 
adoption  of  every  one  of  his  recommendations. 
There  are  no  limits  to  the  good  results  of  his  intro- 


PHILOSOPHY  189 

duction  of  a  true  method  of  reasoning  into  the 
moral  and  political  sciences."  John  Stuart  Mill, 
whose  philosophy  is  "generally  spoken  of  as  being 
typically  English,"  receives  nine  and  a  half 
columns;  Charles  Darwin,  seven  columns;  and 
Herbert  Spencer,  over  five. 

Positivism  in  Germany  is  represented  by  Diihr- 
ing  In  a  biography  which  is  only  three-fourths  of 
a  column  in  length — an  article  which  is  merely  an 
attack,  both  personal  and  general.  "His  pa- 
triotism," we  learn,  "is  fervent,  but  narrow  and 
exclusive."  (Diihring  idolized  Frederick  the 
Great.)  Ardigo,  the  important  Italian  positivist, 
receives  no  mention  whatever  in  the  Encyclo- 
paedia, although  in  almost  any  adequate  history 
of  modern  philosophy,  even  a  brief  one,  you  will 
find  a  discussion  of  his  work. 

With  the  exception  of  Lotze,  the  philosophers 
of  the  new  idealism  receive  scant  treatment  in  the 
Britannica.  Hartmann  and  Fechner  are  ac- 
corded only  one  column  each;  and  Wilhelm 
Wundt,  whose  eesthetic  and  psychological  re- 
searches outstrip  even  his  significant  philosophical 
work,  is  accorded  only  half  a  column  I  Francis 
Herbert  Bradley  has  no  biography — a  curious 
oversight,  since  he  is  English;  and  Fouillee  re- 
ceives only  a  little  over  half  a  column. 

The  most  inadequate  and  prejudiced  treatment 


igo      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

in  the  Britannica  of  any  modern  philosopher  is  to 
be  found  in  the  biography  of  Nietzsche,  which  is 
briefer  than  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward's  I  Not  only 
is  Nietzsche  accorded  less  space  than  is  given  to 
such  British  philosophical  writers  as  Dugald 
Stewart,  Henry  Sidgwick,  Richard  Price,  John 
Norris,  Thomas  Hill  Green,  James  Frederick 
Ferrier,  Adam  Ferguson,  Ralph  Cudworth,  An- 
thony Collins,  Arthur  Collier,  Samuel  Clarke  and 
Alexander  Bain — an  absurd  and  stupid  piece  of 
narrow  provincial  prejudice — but  the  biography 
itself  is  superficial  and  inaccurate.  The  sup- 
posed doctrine  of  Nietzsche  is  here  used  to  expose 
the  personal  opinions  of  the  tutor  of  Corpus 
Christi  College  who  was  assigned  the  task  of  in- 
terpreting Nietzsche  to  the  readers  of  the  Bri- 
tannica. It  would  be  impossible  to  gather  any 
clear  or  adequate  idea  of  Nietzsche  and  his  work 
from  this  biased  and  moral  source.  Here  middle- 
class  British  insularity  reaches  its  high-water 
mark. 

Other  important  modern  thinkers,  however,  are 
given  but  little  better  treatment.  Lange  receives 
only  three-fourths  of  a  column ;  Paulsen,  less  than 
half  a  column;  Ernst  Mach,  only  seventeen  lines; 
Eucken,  only  twenty-eight  lines,  with  a  list  of  his 
works;  and  Renouvier,  two-thirds  of  a  column. 
J.  C.  Maxwell,  though,  the  Cambridge  professor, 


PHILOSOPHY  191 

gets     two     columns — twice     the     space     given 
Nietzsche  I 

In  the  biography  of  WilHam  James  we  discern 
once  more  the  contempt  which  England  has  for 
this  country.  Here  is  a  man  whose  importance 
is  unquestioned  even  in  Europe,  and  who  stands 
out  as  one  of  the  significant  figures  in  modern 
thought;  yet  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica^  that 
"supreme  book  of  knowledge,"  gives  him  a  biog- 
raphy of  just  twenty-eight  lines  I  And  it  is 
Americans  who  are  furnishing  the  profits  for  this 
English  reference  work! 

Perhaps  the  British  editors  of  this  encyclopaedia 
think  that  we  should  feel  greatly  complimented 
at  having  William  James  admitted  at  all  when 
so  many  other  important  modems  of  Germany 
and  France  and  America  are  excluded.  But  so 
long  as  unimportant  English  philosophical  writers 
are  given  biographies,  we  have  a  right  to  expect, 
in  a  work  which  calls  itself  an  "international  dic- 
tionary of  biography,"  the  adequate  inclusion  of 
the  more  deserving  philosophers  of  other  nations. 

But  what  do  we  actually  find^  You  may  hunt 
the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  through,  yet  you 
will  not  see  the  names  of  John  Dewey  and  Stan- 
ley Hall  mentioned!  John  Dewey,  an  Amer- 
ican, is  perhaps  the  world's  leading  authority  on 
the  philosophy  of  education;  but  the  British  edi- 


192      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

tors  of  the  Encyclopsedia  do  not  consider  him 
worth  noting,  even  in  a  casual  way.  Further- 
more, Stanley  Hall,  another  American,  who 
stands  in  the  front  rank  of  tlie  world's  genetic 
psychologists,  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned.  And 
yet  Hall's  great  work,  Adolescence^  appeared  five 
years  before  the  Britannica  went  to  press!  Nor 
has  Josiah  Royce  a  biography,  despite  the  fact 
that  he  was  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  philosophical 
thought  of  America,  and  was  even  made  an  LL.D. 
by  Aberdeen  University  in  1900.  These  omis- 
sions furnish  excellent  examples  of  the  kind  of 
broad  and  universal  culture  which  is  supposed  to 
be  embodied  in  the  Britannica. 

But  these  are  by  no  means  all  the  omissions  of 
the  world's  important  modem  thinkers.  Incred- 
ible as  it  may  seem,  there  is  no  biography  of  Her- 
mann Cohen,  who  elaborated  the  rationalistic 
elements  in  Kant's  philosophy;  of  Alois  Riehl, 
the  positivist  neo-Kantian;  of  Windelband  and 
Rickert,  whose  contributions  to  the  theory  of 
eternal  values  in  criticism  are  of  decided  sig- 
nificance to-day;  of  Freud,  a  man  who  has  revo- 
lutionized modern  psychology  and  philosophic 
determinism;  of  Amiel  Boutroux,  the  modem 
French  philosopher  of  discontinuity;  of  Henri 
Bergson,  whose  influence  and  popularity  need  no 
exposition  here;  of  Guyau,  one  of  the  most  ef- 


PHILOSOPHY  193 

fective  critics  of  English  utilitarianism  and  evo- 
lutionism; or  of  Jung. 

When  we  add  Roberto  Ardigo,  Weininger, 
Edelmann,  Tetans,  and  Sibbern  to  this  list  of 
philosophic  and  psychologic  writers  who  are  not 
considered  of  sufficient  importance  to  receive 
biographical  mention  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britan- 
nica^  we  have,  at  a  glance,  the  prejudicial  inade- 
quacy and  incompleteness  of  this  "great"  English 
reference  work.  Nor  can  any  excuse  be  offered 
that  the  works  of  these  men  appeared  after  the 
Britannica  was  printed.  At  the  time  it  went  to 
press  even  the  most  modem  of  these  writers  held 
a  position  of  sufficient  significance  or  note  to  have 
been  included. 

In  closing,  and  by  way  of  contrast,  let  me  set 
down  some  of  the  modern  British  philosophical 
writers  who  are  given  liberal  biographies:  Rob- 
ert Adamson,  the  Scottish  critical  historian  of 
philosophy;  Alexander  Bain;  Edward  and  John 
Caird,  Scottish  philosophic  divines;  Harry  Cald- 
erwood,  whose  work  was  based  on  the  contention 
that  fate  implies  knowledge  and  on  the  doctrine 
of  divine  sanction;  David  George  Ritchie,  an  un- 
important Scotch  thinker;  Henry  Sidgwick,  an 
orthodox  religionist  and  one  of  the  founders  of 
the  Society  for  Psychical  Research;  James  H. 
Stirling,  an  expounder  of  Hegel  and  Kant;  Wil- 


194      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

liam  Wallace,  an  interpreter  of  Hegel ;  and  Garth 
Wilkinson,  the  Swedenborgian  homeopath. 

Such  is  the  brief  record  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  world's  modem  philosophers  are  treated  in  the 
'Encyclopizdia  Britannica.  From  this  work  hun- 
dreds of  thousands  of  Americans  are  garnering 
their  educational  ideas. 


XI 

RELIGION 

Throughout  several  of  the  foregoing  chapters 
I  have  laid  considerable  emphasis  on  the  narrow 
parochial  attitude  of  the  Bntanmca's  editors  and 
on  the  constant  intrusion  of  England's  middle- 
class  Presbyterianism  into  nearly  every  branch  of 
aesthetics.  The  Britanmca,  far  from  being  the 
objective  and  unbiased  work  it  claims  to  be,  as- 
sumes a  personal  and  prejudiced  attitude,  and  the 
culture  of  the  world  is  colored  and  tinctured  by 
that  viewpoint.  It  would  appear  self-obvious  to 
say  that  the  subject  of  religion  in  any  encyclo- 
psedia  whose  aim  is  to  be  universal,  should  be 
limited  to  the  articles  on  religious  matters.  But 
in  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica  this  is  not  the 
case.  As  I  have  shown,  those  great  artists  and 
thinkers  who  do  not  fall  within  the  range  of 
bourgeois  England's  suburban  morality,  are  neg- 
lected, disparaged,  or  omitted  entirely. 

Not  only  patriotic  prejudice,  but  evangelical 
prejudice  as  well,  characterizes  this  encyclo- 
psedia's  treatment  of  the  world's  great  achieve- 

195 


igG      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

merits;  and  nowhere  does  this  latter  bias  exhibit 
itself  more  unmistakably  than  in  the  articles  re- 
lating to  Catholicism.  The  trickery,  the  mani- 
fest ignorance,  the  contemptuous  arrogance,  the 
inaccuracies,  the  venom,  and  the  half-truths  which 
are  encountered  in  the  discussion  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  its  history  almost  pass  the  bounds  of 
credibility.  The  wanton  prejudice  exhibited  in 
this  department  of  the  Britannzca  cannot  fail  to 
iind  resentment  even  in  non-Catholics,  like  my- 
self; and  for  scholars,  either  in  or  out  of  the 
Church,  this  encyclopasdia,  as  a  source  of  infor- 
mation, is  not  only  worthless  but  grossly  mis- 
leading. 

The  true  facts  relating  to  the  inclusion  of  this 
encyclopaedia's  article  on  Catholicism,  as  showing 
the  arrogant  and  unscholarly  attitude  of  the  edi- 
tors, are  as  interesting  to  those  outside  of  the 
Church  as  to  Catholics  themselves.  And  it  is  for 
the  reason  that  these  articles  are  typical  of  a  great 
many  of  the  Encyclopsedia's  discussions  of  cul- 
ture in  general  that  I  call  attention  both  to  the 
misinformation  contained  in  them  and  to  the 
amazing  refusal  of  the  Britannica^s  editors  to  cor- 
rect the  errors  when  called  to  their  attention  at  a 
time  when  correction  was  possible.  The  treat- 
ment of  the  Catholic  Church  by  the  Britannica 
is  quite  in  keeping  with  its  treatment  of  other  im- 


RELIGION  197 

portant  subjects,  and  it  emphasizes,  perhaps  bet- 
ter than  any  other  topic,  not  only  the  Encyclo- 
psedia's  petty  bias  and  incompleteness,  but  the 
indefensible  and  mendacious  advertising  by  which 
this  set  of  books  was  foisted  upon  the  American 
public.  And  it  also  gives  direct  and  irrefutable 
substantiation  to  my  accusation  that  the  spirit  of 
the  EncydopcEdia  Britannica  is  closely  allied  to 
the  provincial  religious  doctrines  of  the  British 
bourgeoisie;  and  that  therefore  it  is  a  work  of  the 
most  questionable  value. 

Over  five  years  ago  T.  J.  Campbell,  S.  J.,  in 
The  Catholic  Mind,  wrote  an  article  entitled  The 
Truth  About  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica — an 
article  which,  from  the  standpoint  of  an  author- 
ity, exposed  the  utter  unreliability  of  this  En- 
cyclopaedia's discussion  of  Catholicism.  The 
article  is  too  long  to  quote  here,  but  enough  of  it 
will  be  given  to  reveal  the  inadequacy  of  the 
Britannica  as  a  source  of  accurate  information. 
"The  Encyclopedia  Britannica,''  the  article  be- 
gins, "has  taken  an  unfair  advantage  of  the 
public.  By  issuing  all  its  volumes  simultan- 
eously it  prevented  any  protests  against  misstate- 
ments until  the  whole  harm  was  done.  Hence- 
forth prudent  people  will  be  less  eager  to  put 
faith  in  prospectuses  and  promises.  The  volumes 
were  delivered  in  two  installments  a  couple  of 


igS      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

months  apart.  The  article  Catholic  Churchy  in 
which  the  animus  of  the  Encyclopaedia  might  have 
been  detected,  should  naturally  have  been  in  the 
first  set.  It  was  adroitly  relegated  to  the  end 
of  the  second  set,  under  the  caption  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church. 

"It  had  been  intimated  to  us  that  the  Encyclo- 
paedia's account  of  the  Jesuits  was  particularly 
offensive.  That  is  our  excuse  for  considering  it 
first.  Turning  to  it  we  found  that  the  same  old 
battered  scarecrow  had  been  set  up.  The  article 
covers  ten  and  a  half  large,  double-columned, 
closely-printed  pages,  and  requires  more  than  an 
hour  in  its  perusal.  After  reading  it  two  or  three 
times  we  closed  the  book  with  amazement,  not 
at  the  calumnies  with  which  the  article  teems  and 
to  which  custom  has  made  us  callous,  but  at  the 
lack  of  good  judgment,  of  accurate  scholarship, 
of  common  information,  and  business  tact  which 
it  reveals  in  those  who  are  responsible  for  its 
publication. 

"It  ought  to  be  supposed  that  the  subscribers 
to  this  costly  encyclopaedia  had  a  right  to  expect 
in  the  discussion  of  all  the  questions  presented  an 
absolute  or  quasi-absolute  freedom  from  partisan 
bias,  a  sincere  and  genuine  presentation  of  all  the 
results  of  the  most  modem  research,  a  positive 
exclusion  of  all  second-hand  and  discredited  mat- 


RELIGION  199 

ter,  and  a  scrupulous  adherence  to  historical  truth. 
In  the  article  in  question  all  these  essential  con- 
ditions are  woefully  lacking. 

"Encyclopsedias  of  any  pretence  take  especial 
pride  in  the  perfection  and  completeness  of  their 
bibliographies.  It  is  a  stamp  of  scholarship  and 
a  guarantee  of  the  thoroughness  and  reliability  of 
the  article,  which  is  supposed  to  be  an  extract 
and  a  digest  of  all  that  has  been  said  or  written  on 
the  subject.  The  bibliography  annexed  to  the 
article  on  the  Jesuits,  is  not  only  deplorably 
meagre,  but  hopelessly  antiquated.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, only  three  works  of  the  present  century 
are  quoted;  one  of  them  apparently  for  no  reason 
whatever,  viz.:  The  History  of  the  Jesuits  of 
North  America,  in  three  volumes,  by  Thomas 
Hughes,  S.  J.,  for,  as  far  as  we  are  able  to  see, 
the  Encyclopaedia  article  makes  no  mention  of 
their  being  with  Lord  Baltimore  in  Maryland,  or 
of  the  preceding  troubles  of  the  Jesuits  in  Eng- 
land, which  were  considered  important  enough 
for  a  monumental  work,  but  evidently  not  for  a 
compiler  of  the  Encyclopaedia.  Again,  the  nine 
words,  'laboring  amongst  the  Hurons  and  Iro- 
quois of  North  America,'  form  the  sum  total  of 
all  the  information  vouchsafed  us  about  the  great 
missions  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies, though  we  are  referred  to  the  seventy-three 


200      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

volumes  of  Thwaites'  edition  of  the  Jesuits  Re- 
lations. Had  the  author  or  editor  even  glanced 
at  these  books  he  might  have  seen  that  besides  the 
Huron  and  Iroquois  missions,  which  were  very 
brief  in  point  of  time  and  very  restricted  in  their 
territorial  limitations,  the  Jesuit  missions  with  the 
Algonquins  extended  from  Newfoundland  to 
Alaska,  and  are  still  continued;  he  would  have 
found  that  most  of  the  ethnological,  religious, 
linguistic  and  geographical  knowledge  we  have  of 
aboriginal  North  America  comes  from  those  Jesuit 
Relations;  and  possibly  without  much  research 
the  sluggish  reader  would  have  met  with  a  certain 
inconspicuous  Marquette;  but  as  Englishmen,  up 
to  the  Civil  War,  are  said  to  have  imagined  that 
the  Mississippi  was  the  dividing  line  between  the 
North  and  South,  the  value  of  the  epoch-making 
discover)^  of  the  great  river  never  entered  this 
slow  foreigner's  mind.  Nor  is  there  any  refer- 
ence to  the  gigantic  labors  of  the  Jesuits  in  Mex- 
ico; but  perhaps  Mexico  is  not  considered  to  be 
in  North  America. 

"Nor  is  there  in  this  bibliography  any  mention 
of  the  Monumenta  Historica  Societatis  Jesu,  nor 
of  the  Monumenta  Padagogica,  nor  is  there  any 
allusion  to  the  great  and  learned  works  of  Duhr, 
Tacchi-Venturi,  Fouqueray,  and  Kroes,  which 
have  just  been  published  and  are  mines  of  in- 


RELIGION  201 

formation  on  the  history  of  the  Society  in  Spain, 
Germany,  Italy  and  France;  and  although  we  are 
told  of  the  Historia  S octet atis  Jesu  by  Orlandini, 
which  bears  the  very  remote  imprint  of  1620,  is 
very  difficult  to  obtain,  and  covers  a  very  re- 
stricted period,  there  is  apparently  no  knowledge 
of  the  classic  work  of  Jouvency,  nor  is  Sacchini 
cited,  nor  Polanco.  The  Bibliotheque  des  ecri' 
vains  de  la  Compagnie  de  Jesus^  by  De  Backer, 
not  'Backer,'  as  the  Encyclopaedia  has  it,  is  listed; 
but  it  is  simply  shocking  to  find  that  there  was  no 
knowledge  of  Sommervogel,  who  is  the  continu- 
ator  of  De  Backer,  and  who  has  left  us  a  most 
scholarly  and  splendid  work  which  is  brought 
down  to  our  own  times,  and  for  which  De  Back- 
er's, notable  though  it  be,  was  only  a  preparation. 
In  brief,  the  bibliography  is  absolutely  worthless, 
not  only  for  a  scholar,  but  even  for  the  average 
reader. 

"On  the  other  hand  it  is  quite  in  keeping  with 
the  character  of  the  writers  who  were  chosen  for 
the  article.  The  New  York  Evening  Post  in- 
forms us  that  before  1880,  when  a  search  for  a 
suitable  scribe  for  the  Jesuit  article  was  instituted, 
some  one  started  on  a  hunt  for  Cardinal  Newman, 
but  the  great  man  had  no  time.  Then  he  thought 
of  Manning,  who,  of  course,  declined,  and  finally 
knowing  no  other  'Jesuit'  he  gave  the  work  to 


202      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Littledale.  Littledale,  as  everyone  knows,  was 
an  Anglican  minister,  notorious  not  only  for  his 
antagonism  to  the  Jesuits,  but  also  to  the  Cath- 
olic Church.  He  gladly  addressed  himself  to  the 
task,  and  forthwith  informed  the  world  that  'the 
Jesuits  controlled  the  policy  of  Spain';  that  'it 
was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  they 
kindled  the  Franco-Prussian  war  of  1870';  that 
'Pope  Julius  II  dispensed  the  Father  General 
from  his  vow  of  poverty,'  though  that  warrior 
Pope  expired  eight  years  before  Ignatius  sought 
the  solitude  of  Manresa,  and  had  as  yet  no  idea 
of  a  Society  of  Jesus;  again,  that  'the  Jesuits 
from  the  beginning  never  obeyed  the  Pope' ;  that 
'in  their  moral  teaching  they  can  attenuate  and 
even  defend  any  kind  of  sin' ;  and,  finally,  not  to 
be  too  prolix  in  this  list  of  absurdities,  that,  prior 
to  the  Vatican  Council,  'they  had  filled  up  all  the 
sees  of  Latin  Christendom  with  bishops  of  their 
own  selection.' 

"It  is  true  that  only  the  last  mentioned  charge 
appears  in  the  present  edition,  and  it  is  a  fortu- 
nate concession  for  Littledale's  suffering  victims; 
for  if  'there  are  no  great  intellects  among  the 
Jesuits,'  and  if  they  are  only  a  set  of  'respectable 
mediocrities,'  as  this  'revised'  article  tells  us,  they 
can  point  with  pride  to  this  feat  which  makes  a 
dozen    Franco-Prussian    wars    pale    into    insig- 


RELIGION  203 

nificance  alongside  it.  We  doubt,  however,  if  the 
700  prelates  who  sat  in  the  Vatican  Council 
would  accept  that  explanation  of  their  promotion 
in  the  prelacy;  and  we  feel  certain  that  Cardinal 
Manning,  who  was  one  of  the  great  figures  in  that 
assembly,  would  resent  it,  at  least  if  it  be  true, 
as  the  Encyclopaedia  assures  us,  that  he  consid- 
ered the  suppression  of  the  Society  in  1773  ^^  ^^ 
the  work  of  God,  and  was  sure  that  another  1773 
was  coming. 

"The  wonder  is  that  a  writer  who  can  be  guilty 
of  such  absurdities  should,  after  twenty  years,  be 
summoned  from  the  dead  as  a  witness  to  anything 
at  all.  But  on  the  other  hand  it  is  not  surprising 
when  we  see  that  the  Rev.  Ethelred  Taunton, 
who  is  also  dead  and  buried,  should  be  made  his 
yoke-fellow  in  ploughing  over  this  old  field,  to 
sow  again  these  poisonous  weeds.  There  are 
many  post-mortems  in  the  Encyclopaedia.  Had 
the  careless  editors  of  the  Encyclopaedia  consulted 
Usher's  Reconstruction  of  the  English  Churchy 
they  would  have  found  Taunton  described  as  an 
author  'who  makes  considerable  parade  of  the 
amount  of  his  research,  but  has  not  gone  very  far 
and  has  added  little,  if  anything,  to  what  we 
knew  before.  As  a  whole,  his  book  on  The  His- 
tory of  the  Jesuits  in  England  is  uncritical  and 
prejudiced.' 


204      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

"Such  is  the  authority  the  Encyclopsedia  ap- 
peals to  for  information.  That  is  bad  enough, 
but  in  the  list  of  authors  Taunton  is  actually  de- 
scribed as  a  'Jesuit.'  Possibly  it  is  one  of  the 
punishments  the  Almighty  has  meted  out  to  him 
for  his  misuse  of  the  pen  while  on  earth.  But 
he  never  did  half  the  harm  to  the  Jesuits  by  his 
ill-natured  assaults  as  he  has  to  the  Encyclopaedia 
in  being  mistaken  for  an  'S.  J.';  for  although 
there  are  some  people  who  will  believe  anything 
an  encyclopsedia  tells  them,  there  are  others  who 
are  not  so  meek  and  who  will  be  moved  to  inquire 
how,  if  the  editor  of  this  publication  is  so  lament- 
ably ignorant  of  the  personality  and  antecedents 
of  his  contributors,  he  can  vouch  for  the  reliabil- 
ity of  what  newspaper  men  very  properly  call  the 
stuff  that  comes  into  the  office.  We  are  not  told 
who  revised  the  writings  of  those  two  dead  men, 
one  of  whom  departed  this  life  twenty,  the  other 
four  years  ago;  and  we  have  to  be  satisfied  with 
a  posthumous  and  prejudiced  and  partly  anon- 
ymous account  of  a  great  Order,  about  which 
many  important  books  have  been  written  since 
the  demise  of  the  original  calumniators,  and  with 
which  apparently  the  unknown  reviser  is  unac- 
quainted. 

"It  may  interest  the  public  to  know  that  many 
of  these  errors  were  pointed  out  to  the  managers 


RELIGION  20? 

of  the  Encyclopsedia  at  their  New  York  office 
when  the  matter  was  still  in  page  proof  and  could 
have  been  corrected.  Evidently  it  was  not 
thought  worth  while  to  pay  any  attention  to  the 
protest. 

"It  is  true  that  in  the  minds  of  some  of  their 
enemies,  especially  in  certain  parts  of  the  habit- 
able globe,  Catholics  have  no  right  to  resent  any- 
thing that  is  said  of  their  practices  and  beliefs, 
no  matter  how  false  or  grotesque  such  statements 
may  be;  and,  consequently,  we  are  not  surprised 
at  the  assumption  by  the  Encyclopcsdza  Britannica 
of  its  usual  contemptuous  attitude.  Thus,  for 
instance,  on  turning  to  the  articles  Casuistry  and 
Roman  Catholic  Church  we  find  them  signed 
'St.  C  Naturally  and  supernaturally  to  be 
under  the  guidance  of  a  Saint  C.  or  a  Saint  D. 
always  inspires  confidence  in  a  Catholic;  but  this 
'St.  C  turns  out  to  be  only  the  Viscount  St. 
Cyres,  a  scion  of  the  noble  house  of  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote,  the  one  time  leader  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  who  died  in  1887.  In  the  Viscount's 
ancestral  tree  we  notice  that  Sir  Henry  Stafford 
Northcote,  first  Baronet,  has  appended  to  his 
name  the  title  'Prov.  Master  of  Devonshire  Free- 
masons.' What  'Prov.'  means  we  do  not  know, 
but  we  are  satisfied  with  the  remaining  part  of 
the  description.     The  Viscount  was  educated  at 


2o6      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

Eton,  and  Merton  College,  Oxford.  He  is  a  lay- 
man and  a  clubman,  and  as  far  as  we  know  is 
not  suspected  of  being  a  Catholic.  A  search  in 
the  'Who's  Who?'  failed  to  reveal  anything  on 
that  point,  though  a  glance  at  the  articles  over 
his  name  will  dispense  us  from  any  worry  about 
his  religious  status. 

"We  naturally  ask  why  he  should  have  been 
chosen  to  enlighten  the  world  on  Catholic  topics? 
'Because,'  says  the  editor  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica^  'the  Viscount  St.  Cyres  has  probably 
more  knowledge  of  the  development  of  theology 
in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  than  any  other 
person  in  that  Church.' 

"The  Church  was  unaware  that  it  had  at  its 
disposal  such  a  source  of  information.  It  will 
be  news  to  many,  but  we  are  inclined  to  ask  how 
the  Viscount  acquired  that  marvelous  knowledge. 
It  would  require  a  life-long  absorption  in  the 
study  of  divinity  quite  incompatible  with  the 
social  duties  of  one  of  his  station.  Furthermore, 
we  should  like  to  know  whence  comes  the  com- 
petency of  the  editor  to  decide  on  the  ability  of 
the  Viscount,  and  to  pass  judgment  on  the  cor- 
rectness of  his  contribution?  That  also  supposes 
an  adequate  knowledge  of  all  that  the  dogmatic, 
moral  and  mystic  theologians  ever  wrote,  a  life- 
long training  in  the  language  and  methods  of  the 


RELIGION  207 

science,  and  a  special  intellectual  aptitude  to  com- 
prehend the  sublime  speculations  of  the  Church's 
divines. 

"It  will  not  be  unkind  to  deny  him  such  quali- 
fications, especially  now,  for  did  he  not  tell  his 
friends  at  the  London  banquet:  'During  all 
these  (seven)  years  I  have  been  busy  in  the  black- 
smith's shop  (of  the  editor's  room)  and  I  do  not 
hear  the  noise  that  is  made  by  the  hammers  all 
around  me' — nor,  it  might  be  added,  does  he  hear 
what  is  going  on  outside  the  Britannica's  forge. 

"Meantime,  we  bespeak  the  attention  of  all  the 
Catholic  theologians  in  every  part  of  the  world 
to  the  preposterous  invitation  to  come  to  hear  the 
last  word  about  'the  development  of  theology'  in 
the  Catholic  Church  from  a  scholar  whose  claim 
to  theological  distinction  is  that  'he  has  written 
about  Fenelon  and  Pascal.'  The  Britannica 
shows  scant  respect  to  Catholic  scholarship  and 
Catholic  intelligence." 

Father  Campbell  then  devotes  several  pages  to 
a  specific  indictment  of  the  misstatements  and  the 
glaring  errors  to  be  found  in  several  of  the  articles 
relating  to  the  Catholic  Church.  He  quotes  eight 
instances  of  St.  Cyres'  inaccurate  and  personal 
accusations,  and  also  many  passages  from  the  arti- 
cles on  Papacy^  Celibacy  and  St.  Catherine  of 
Siena — passages  which  show  the  low  and  biased 


2o8      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

standard  of  scholarship  by  which  they  were  writ- 
ten. The  injustice  contained  in  them  is  obvious 
even  to  a  superficial  student  of  history.  At  the 
close  of  these  quotations  he  accuses  the  Britannica 
of  being  neither  up-to-date,  fair,  nor  well-in- 
formed. "It  repeats  old  calumnies  that  have 
been  a  thousand  times  refuted,  and  it  persistently 
selects  the  Church's  enemies  who  hold  her  up  to 
ridicule  and  contempt.  We  are  sorry  for  those 
who  have  been  lavish  in  their  praises  of  a  book 
which  is  so  defective,  so  prejudiced,  so  misleading 
and  so  insulting." 

It  seems  that  while  the  Britannica's  contribu- 
tions to  the  general  misinformation  of  the  world 
were  being  discussed,  the  editor  wrote  to  one  of 
his  subscribers  saying  that  the  Catholics  were  very 
much  vexed  because  the  article  on  the  Jesuits  was 
not  "sufficiently  eulogistic." 

"He  is  evidently  unaware,"  Father  Campbell 
goes  on  to  comment,  "that  the  Society  of  Jesus 
is  sufficiently  known  both  in  the  Church  and  the 
world  not  to  need  a  monument  in  the  graveyard 
of  the  Encyclopizdia  Britannica.  Not  the  hum- 
blest Brother  in  the  Order  expected  anything  but 
calumny  and  abuse  when  he  saw  appended  to 
the  article  the  initials  of  the  well-known  assassins 
of  the  Society's  reputation.  Not  one  was  sur- 
prised, much  less  displeased,  at  the  absence  of 


RELIGION  209 

eulogy,  sufficient  or  otherwise;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, they  were  all  amazed  to  find  the  loudly 
trumpeted  commercial  enterprise,  which  had  been 
so  persistently  clamorous  of  its  possession  of  the 
most  recent  results  of  research  in  every  depart- 
ment of  learning,  endeavoring  to  palm  off  on  the 
public  such  shopworn  travesties  of  historical  and 
religious  truth.  The  editor  is  mistaken  if  he 
thinks  they  pouted.  Old  and  scarred  veterans  are 
averse  to  being  patted  on  the  back  by  their 
enemies. 

"It  is  not,  however,  the  ill-judged  gibe  that 
compels  us  to  revert  to  the  Society,  as  much  as 
the  suspicion  that  the  editor  of  the  'Encyclopedia 
Britannica  seems  to  fancy  that  we  had  nothing 
to  say  beyond  calling  attention  to  his  dilapidated 
bibliography,  which  he  labels  with  the  very  of- 
fensive title  of  'the  bibliography  of  Jesuitism^ — • 
a  term  which  is  as  incorrect  as  it  is  insulting — 
or  that  we  merely  objected  to  the  employment  of 
two  dead  and  discredited  witnesses  to  tell  the 
world  what  kind  of  an  organization  the  Society  is. 

"It  may  be,  moreover,  that  we  misjudged  a  cer- 
tain portion  of  the  reading  public  in  treating  the 
subject  so  lightly,  and  as  the  Encyclopaedia  is  con- 
tinually reiterating  the  assertion  that  it  has  no 
'bias'  and  that  its  statement  of  facts  is  purely  'ob- 
jective/ a  few  concrete  examples  of  the  opposite 


210      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

kind  of  treatment — the  one  commonly  employed 
— may  not  be  out  of  place. 

*'We  are  told,  for  instance,  that  'the  Jesuits  had 
their  share,  direct  or  indirect,  in  the  embroiling 
of  States,  in  concocting  conspiracies  and  in  kind- 
ling wars.  They  were  responsible  by  their 
theoretical  teachings  in  theological  schools  for 
not  a  few  assassinations'  (340).  'They  power- 
fully aided  the  revolution  which  placed  the  Duke 
of  Braganza  on  the  throne  of  Portugal,  and  their 
services  were  rewarded  with  the  practical  control 
of  ecclesiastical  and  almost  civil  affairs  in  that 
kingdom  for  nearly  one  hundred  years'  (344). 
'Their  war  against  the  Jansenists  did  not  cease 
till  the  very  walls  of  Port  Royal  were  demolished 
in  1710,  even  to  the  very  abbey  church  itself,  and 
the  bodies  of  the  dead  taken  with  every  mark  of 
insult  from  their  graves  and  literally  flung  to  the 
dogs  to  devour'  (345).  Tn  Japan  the  Jesuits 
died  with  their  converts  bravely  as  martyrs  to 
the  Faith,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  acquit  them  of 
a  large  share  of  the  causes  of  that  overthrow' 
(345).  Tt  was  about  the  same  time  that  the 
grave  scandal  of  the  Chinese  and  Malabar  rites 
began  to  attract  attention  in  Europe  and  to  make 
thinking  men  ask  seriously  whether  the  Jesuit 
missionaries  in  those  parts  taught  anything  which 
could     fairly    be    called     Christianity    at    all' 


RELIGION  211 

(348).  'The  political  schemings  of  Parsons  in 
England  was  an  object  lesson  to  the  rest  of  Eu- 
rope of  a  restless  ambition  and  a  lust  of  domina- 
tion which  were  to  find  many  imitators'  (348). 
'The  General  of  the  Order  drove  away  six  thou- 
sand exiled  Jesuit  priests  from  the  coast  of  Italy, 
and  made  them  pass  several  months  of  suffering 
on  crowded  vessels  at  sea  to  increase  public  sym- 
pathy, but  the  actual  result  was  blame  for  the 
cruelty  with  which  he  had  enhanced  their  mis- 
fortunes' (346).  'Clement  XIV,  who  suppressed 
them,  is  said  to  have  died  of  poison,  but  Tanucci 
and  two  others  entirely  acquit  the  Jesuits.' 
'They  are  accountable  in  no  small  degree  in 
France,  as  in  England,  for  alienating  the  minds 
of  men  from  the  religion  for  which  they  professed 
to  work'  (345). 

"Very  little  of  this  can  be  characterized  as 
'eulogistic,'  especially  as  interwoven  in  the  story 
are  malignant  insinuations,  incomplete  and  dis- 
torted statements,  suppressions  of  truth,  gross 
errors  of  fact,  and  a  continual  injection  of  per- 
sonal venom  which  makes  the  argument  not  an 
'unbiased  and  objective  presentment'  of  the  case, 
but  the  plea  of  a  prejudiced  prosecuting  and 
persecuting  attorney  endeavoring  by  false  testi- 
mony to  convict  before  the  bar  of  public  opinion 
an  alleged  culprit,  whose  destruction  he  is  trying 


212      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

to  accomplish  with  an  uncanny  sort  of  delight." 
After  having  adduced  a  long  list  of  instances 
which  "reveal  the  rancor  and  ignorance  of  many 
of  the  writers  hired  by  the  Encyclopaedia,"  the 
article  then  points  out  "the  fundamental  untruth- 
fulness'* on  which  the  Britannica  is  built.  In  a 
letter  written  by  the  Encyclopedia's  editor  ap- 
pears the  following  specious  explanation:  "Ex- 
treme care  was  taken  by  the  editors,  and  especially 
by  the  editor  responsible  for  the  theological  side 
of  the  work,  that  every  subject,  either  directly  or 
indirectly  concerned  with  religion,  should  as  far 
as  possible  be  objective  and  not  subjective  in  their 
presentation.  The  majority  of  the  articles  on  the 
various  Churches  and  their  beliefs  were  written 
by  members  within  the  several  communions,  and, 
if  not  so  written,  were  submitted  to  those  most 
competent  to  judge,  for  criticism  and,  if  need  be, 
correction." 

Father  Campbell  in  his  answer  to  this  letter 
says:  "Without  animadverting  on  the  peculiar 
use  of  the  English  language  by  the  learned  Eng- 
lish editor  who  tells  us  that  'every  subject'  should 
be  'objective'  in  their  presentation,  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  challenge  absolutely  the  assertion  that 
*the  majority  of  the  articles  on  the  various 
Churches  were  written  by  members  within  the  sev- 
eral communions,  and  if  not  so  written  were  sub- 


RELIGION  213 

mitted  to  those  most  competent  to  judge,  for 
criticism  and,  if  need  be,  for  correction.'  Such  a 
pretence  is  simply  amazing,  and  thoroughly  per- 
plexed, we  asked:  What  are  we  supposed  to 
understand  when  we  are  informed  that  'the  ma-. 
jority  of  the  articles  on  the  various  Churches  and 
their  beliefs  were  written  by  members  within  the 
several  communions'^ 

"Was  the  article  on  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  written  by  a  Catholic"?  Was  the  indi- 
vidual who  accumulated  and  put  into  print  all 
those  vile  aspersions  on  the  Popes,  the  saints,  the 
sacraments,  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  a  Cath- 
olic? Were  the  other  articles  on  Casuistry^  Celi- 
bacy, St.  Catherine  of  Siena,  and  Mary,  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  written  by  a  Catholic?  The 
supposition  is  simply  inconceivable,  and  it  calls 
for  more  than  the  unlimited  assurance  of  the  En- 
cyclopczdia  Britannica  to  compel  us  to  accept  it. 

"But  'they  were  submitted  to  the  most  compe- 
tent judge  for  criticism  and,  if  need  be,  correc- 
tion.' Were  they  submitted  to  any  judge  at  all, 
or  to  any  man  of  sense,  before  they  were  sent  off 
to  be  printed  and  scattered  throughout  the  Eng- 
lish speaking  world*?  Is  it  permissible  to  imagine 
for  a  moment  that  any  Catholic  could  have  read 
some  of  those  pages  and  not  have  been  filled  with 
horror  at  the  multiplied  and  studied  insults  to 


214       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

everything  he  holds  most  sacred  in  his  religion? 
Or  did  'the  editor  responsible  for  the  theological 
side  of  the  work'  reserve  for  himself  the  right  to 
reject  or  accept  whatever  recommended  itself  to 
his  superior  judgment*?" 

The  article  then  points  out  that  "far  from 
being  just  to  Catholics,  the  Britamiica  pointedly 
and  persistently  discriminated  against  them." 
The  article  on  the  Episcopalians  was  assigned  to' 
the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  D.  Addison,  Rector  of  All  Saints, 
Brookline,  Mass. ;  that  on  Methodists  to  the  Rev. 
Dr.  J.  M.  Buckley,  Editor  of  the  Christian  Ad- 
vocate, New  York;  that  on  the  Baptists  to  the 
Rev.  Newton  Herbert  Marshall,  Baptist  Church, 
Hampstead,  England;  that  on  the  Jews  to  Israel 
Abrahams,  formerly  President  of  the  Jewish  His- 
torical Society  and  now  Reader  on  Talmudic  and 
Rabbinic  Literature  in  Cambridge,  and  so  on  for 
the  Presbyterians,  Unitarians,  Lutherans,  etc. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  Catholic  Church  not  only  its 
history  but  its  theology  was  given  to  a  critic  who 
was  neither  a  theologian,  nor  a  cleric,  nor  even 
a  Catholic,  and  who,  as  Father  Campbell  notes, 
is  not  known  outside  of  his  little  London  coterie. 

The  Britannica's  editor  also  apologized  for  his 
encyclopaedia  by  stating  that  "Father  Braun, 
S.  J.,  has  assisted  us  in  our  article  on  Vestments, 
and  that  Father  Delehaye,  S.  J.,  has  contributed, 


RELIGION  215 

among  other  articles,  those  on  The  Bollandists 
and  Canonization.  Abbe  Boudinhon  and  Mgr. 
Duchesne,  and  Luchaire  and  Ludwig  von  Pastor 
and  Dr.  Kraus  have  also  contributed,  and  Abbot 
Butler,  O.  S.  B.,  has  written  on  the  Augustinians, 
Benedictines,  Carthusians,  Cistercians,  Domin- 
icans and  Franciscans" ;  and,  finally :  "The  new 
Britannica  has  had  the  honor  of  having  as  a  con- 
tributor His  Eminence  James  Cardinal  Gibbons, 
Archbishop  of  Baltimore,  who  has  written  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  America." 

"But,  after  all,"  answers  Father  Campbell,  "it 
was  not  a  very  generous  concession  to  let  Father 
Joseph  Braun,  S.  J.,  Staatsexamen  ah  Religions- 
oberlehren  fur  Gymnasien^  University  of  Bonn, 
assist  the  editors  in  the  very  safe  article  on  Vest- 
ments^ nor  to  let  the  Bollandists  write  a  column 
on  their  publication,  which  has  been  going  on  for 
three  or  four  hundred  years.  The  list  of  those 
who  wrote  on  the  Papacy  is  no  doubt  respectable 
in  ability  if  not  in  number,  but  we  note  that  the 
editor  is  careful  to  say  that  the  writers  of  that 
article  were  'principally'  Roman  Catholics. 

"Again  we  are  moved  to  ask  why  should  a 
Benedictine,  distinguished  though  he  be,  have  as- 
signed to  him  the  history  of  the  Augustinians, 
Franciscans,  Dominicans,  etc.?  Were  there  no 
men  in  those  great  and  learned  orders  to  tell  what 


2i6      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 

they  must  have  known  better  than  even  the  eru- 
dite Benedictine?  Nor  will  it  avail  to  tell  us 
that  His  Eminence  of  Baltimore  wrote  The  His- 
tory of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  the  United 
States^  when  that  article  comprises  only  a  column 
of  statistics,  preceded  by  two  paragraphs,  one  on 
the  early  missions,  and  the  other  on  the  settlement 
of  Lord  Baltimore.  No  one  more  than  the  illus- 
trious and  learned  churchman  would  have  re- 
sented calling  such  a  mere  compilation  of  figures 
a  History  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United 
States,  and  no  one  would  be  more  shocked  than  he 
by  the  propinquity  of  his  restricted  article  to  the 
prolix  and  shameless  one  to  which  it  is  annexed." 

Here  in  brief  is  an  account  of  the  "impartial" 
manner  in  which  Catholicism  is  recorded  and  de- 
scribed in  that  "supreme"  book  of  knowledge,  the 
'Encyclopczdia  Britannica.  And  I  set  down  this 
record  here  not  because  it  is  exceptional  but,  to 
the  contrary,  because  it  is  representative  of  the 
way  in  which  the  world's  culture  (outside  of  Eng- 
land), and  especially  the  culture  of  America,  is 
treated. 

The  intellectual  prejudice  and  contempt  of 
England  for  America  is  even  greater  if  anything 
than  England's  religious  prejudice  and  contempt 
for  Catholicism;  and  this  fact  should  be  borne  in 
mind  when  you  consult  the  Britannica  for  knowl- 


RELIGION  217 

edge.  It  will  not  give  you  even  scholarly  or  ob- 
jective information:  it  will  advise  you,  by  con- 
stant insinuation  and  intimation,  as  well  as  by 
direct  statement,  that  English  culture  and  achieve- 
ment represent  the  transcendent  glories  of  the 
world,  and  that  the  great  men  and  great  accom- 
plishments of  other  nations  are  of  minor  im- 
portance. No  more  fatal  intellectual  danger  to 
America  can  be  readily  conceived  than  this  dis- 
torted, insular,  incomplete,  and  aggressively  Brit- 
ish reference  work. 


XII 

TWO    HUNDRED    OMISSIONS 

The  following  list  contains  two  hundred  of 
the  many  hundreds  of  writers,  painters,  musicians 
and  scientists  who  are  denied  biographies  in  the 
Britannica.  There  is  not  a  name  here  which 
should  not  be  in  an  encyclopaedia  which  claims 
for  itself  the  completeness  which  the  Britannica 
claims.  Many  of  the  names  stand  in  the  fore- 
front of  modern  culture.  Their  omission  is  noth- 
ing short  of  preposterous,  and  can  be  accounted 
for  only  on  the  grounds  of  ignorance  or  prejudice. 
In  either  case,  they  render  the  encyclopaedia  in- 
adequate as  an  up-to-date  and  comprehensive  ref- 
erence work. 

It  will  be  noted  that  not  one  of  these  names  is 
English,  and  that  America  has  suffered  from  neg- 
lect in  a  most  outrageous  fashion.  After  reading 
the  flamboyant  statements  made  in  the  Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica's  advertising,  glance  down  this 
list.  Then  decide  for  yourself  whether  or  not  the 
statements  are  accurate. 

Objection  may  be  raised  to  some  of  the  foUow- 
218 


TWO  HUNDRED  OMISSIONS     219 


ing  names  on  the  ground  that  they  are  not  of  suf- 
ficient importance  to  be  included  in  an  encyclo- 
paedia, and  that  their  omission  cannot  be  held  to 
the  discredit  of  the  Britannica.  In  answer  let  me 
state  that  for  every  name  listed  here  as  being  de- 
nied a  biography,  there  are  one  or  two,  and,  in 
the  majority  of  cases,  many.  Englishmen  in  the 
same  field  who  are  admittedly  inferior  and  yet 
who  are  given  detailed  and  generally  laudatory 
biographies. 

LITERATURE 


"A.  E."  (George  W.  Rus- 
sell) 
Andreiev 
Artzibashef 
Hermann  Bahr 
Henri  Bernstein 
Otto  Julius  Bierbaum 
Ambrose  Bierce 
Helene  Bohlau 
Henry  Bordeaux 
Rene  Boylesve 
Enrico  Butti 
Cammaerts 
Capuana 
Bliss  Carman 
Winston  Churchill 
Pierre  de  Coulevain 
Richard  Dehmel 
Margaret  Deland 
Grazia  Deledda 
Theodore  Dreiser 


Eekhoud 

Clyde  Fitch 

Paul  Fort 

Gustav  Frenssen 

Froding 

Fucini  (Tanfucio  Neri) 

Garshin 

Stefan  George 

Rene  de  Ghil 

Giacosa 

Ellen  Glasgow 

Remy  de  Gourmont 

Robert  Grant 

Lady  Gregory 

Grigorovich 

Hartleben 

Heidenstam 

Hirschfeld 

Hugo  von  Hofmannsthal 

Arno  Holz 

Richard  Hovey 


220       MISINFORMING  A  NATION 


Bronson  Howard 

Ricarda  Huch 

James  Huneker 

Douglas  Hyde 

Lionel  Johnson 

Karlfeldt 

Charles  Klein 

Korolenko 

Kuprin 

Percy  MacKaye 

Emilio  de  Marchi 

Ferdinando  Martini 

Stuart  Merrill 

William  Vaughn  Moody 

Nencioni 

Standish  O'Grady 

Ompteda 

Panzacchi 

Giovanni  Pascoli 

David   Graham   Phillips 

Wilhelm  von  Polenz 

Rapisardi 

Edwin  Arlington  Robinson 

Romain  Rolland 

T.  W.  Rolleston 


Rovetta 

Albert  Samain 

George  Santayana 

Johannes  Schlaf 

Schnitzler 

Severin 

Signoret 

Synge 

John  Bannister  Tabb 

Tchekhoff 

Gherardi  del  Testa 

Jerome  and  Jean  Tharaud 

Ludwig  Thoma 

Augustus  Thomas 

Tinayre 

Katherine  Tynan 

Veressayeff 

Clara  Viebig 

Annie  Vivanti 

Wackenroder 

Wedekind 

Edith  Wharton 

Owen  Wister 

Ernst  von  Wolzogen 


PAINTING 


George  Bellows 
Carriere 
Mary  Cassatt 
Cezanne 
Louis  Corinth 
Maurice  Denis 
Gauguin 
Habermann 


C.  W.  Hawthorne 

Robert  Henri 

Hodler 

Sergeant  Kendall 

Ludwig  Knaus 

Kriiger 

Jean  Paul  Laurens 

Leibl 


TWO  HUNDRED  OMISSIONS     221 


Von  Marees 

Toulouse-Lautrec 

Rene  Menard 

Triibner 

Redon 

Twachtman 

Charles  Shuch 

Van  Gogh 

Lucien  Simon 

Vallotton 

Steinlen 

Zorn 

MUSIC 

d'Albert 

Marschner 

Arensky 

Nevin 

Mrs.  Beach 

Nordraak 

Busoni 

John  Knowles  Paine 

Buxtehude 

Horatio  Parker 

Charpentier 

Rachmaninov 

Frederick  Converse 

Ravel 

Cui 

Max  Reger 

Arthur  Foote 

Nikolaus  Rubinstein 

Grechaninov 

Scharwenka  brothers 

Guilmant 

Georg  Alfred  Schumann 

Henry  K.  Hadley 

Scriabine 

Josef  Hofmann 

Sibelius 

Edgar  Stillman  Kelly 

Friedrich  Silcher 

Kreisler 

Sinding 

Leschetitzky 

Taneiev 

Gustav  Mahler 

Wolf-Ferrari 

SCIENCE  AND  INVENTION 

V^illiam  Beaumont 

Simon  Flexner 

John  Shaw  Billings 

W.  W.  Gerhard 

Luther  Burbank 

Samuel  David  Gross 

George  W.  Crile 

William  S.  Halsted 

Harvey  Cushing 

Wilhelm  His 

Rudolph  Diesel 

Abraham  Jacobi 

Daniel  Drake 

Rudolph  Leuckart 

Ehrlich 

Franz  Leydig 

222      MISINFORMING  A  NATION 


Jacques  Loeb 

Ramon  y  Cajal 

Percival  Lowell 

Nicholas  Senn 

Lyonet  (Lyonnet) 

Marion  Sims 

S.  J.  Meltzer 

Theobald  Smith 

Metchnikoff 

W.  H.  Welch 

T.  H.  Morgan 

Orville  Wright 

Joseph  O'Dwyer 

Wilbur  Wright 

PSYCHOLOGY  AND  PHILOSOPI 

Ardigo 

Jung 

Bergson 

Kulpe 

Boutroux 

Lipps 

Hermann  Cohen 

Josiah  Royce 

John  Dewey 

Alois  Riehl 

Edelmann 

Sibbern 

Freud 

Soloviov 

Guyau 

Tetans 

G.  Stanley  Hall 

Windelband 

Hildebrand 

/>v 


^A2^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  881  155    6 


§ifiof. 


Mi. 


'      i>^r 


